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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write; the description goes further by disclosing the return payload (TXT proof record then pointing records), the sequence of what the human must do, and that the site migrates only once those records are observed. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Roughly three sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and action, then the return payload and the verification follow-up. No filler sentences; each clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining the return value and it does so (DNS records in order, eventual domain migration). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-covered schema, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the token fallback to the Authorization header. The description implies the domain is one the human already owns but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Put a site nobody owns yet on a domain') plus the precondition that distinguishes it from the post-ownership path. An agent can tell this apart from domain_status and from setting a domain via settings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (site nobody owns yet) and when not to (once someone owns the site, the domain is set only from its settings), and names the sibling to call afterwards (domain_status). The routing conditions are fully spelled out.

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