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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing auth requirements (session, X-Organization-Id, CSRF), the 25-item selection cap, registrable-domain de-duplication, server-side re-validation of account/organization/revisions, and staleness semantics ('a stale preview changes nothing'). This is meaningful procedural context the annotations do not carry, though the exact nature of what the preview reveals is left unstated.

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?

Short, information-dense sentences with no obvious padding. Minor structural quibble: the auth prerequisite is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose, which slightly delays the reader understanding what the tool does.

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?

Covers auth, selection limits, de-duplication, server re-validation and staleness for a two-parameter preview tool. With no output schema, one gap remains: the description never says what the preview actually returns or displays, which an agent invoking a 'preview' would benefit from knowing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the registrable-domain de-duplication rule ('repeated registrable domains count once') is not captured by uniqueItems/maxItems, and 'before changing renewal notices' contextualizes lead_days.

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 ('Review/preview') and resource (selected domains' renewal notices), so the tool's job is clear: preview before committing alert changes. It never names the sibling that actually applies the change (apply_domain_alerts), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

'before changing renewal notices' implies the when-to-use context (prior to applying), which is genuine guidance. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state exclusions, so the agent must infer the preview-then-apply workflow.

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