Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it is 'Free,' it 'Creates nothing and never grants ownership' (pre-empting a likely misconception), and it discloses the manual token/install/verify steps. Return format remains unspecified, keeping it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded: cost, purpose, negative scope, then the workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only preparation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints and the follow-up verification workflow. It could say more about what the prepared link/token contains, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: the `listing` param is well documented in the schema, but the `method` enum (dns/meta/badge) carries no schema description. The description compensates by naming the three proof mechanisms — 'DNS TXT, HTML meta tag or site badge' — giving the enum values concrete meaning, which is genuine added semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a link to claim an approved listing using DNS TXT, HTML meta tag or site badge.' It also draws a sharp line around scope with 'Creates nothing and never grants ownership,' so the agent knows this is the preparation step, not the claim itself. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g. check_domain or prepare_listing_submission), so not a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Describes the flow an agent should expect: 'The user signs in, generates a token, installs the proof on the business domain and verifies it on FirmLedger.' This gives clear context for a multi-step human-driven workflow. It stops short of explicitly routing to alternatives (like a verification sibling) or naming when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.