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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it writes the refreshed status, returns status values (pending_dns, verifying, issuing_cert, active, error), includes dns_records and error reasons, and notes that a transition to active can notify a domain.active webhook. These additions are consistent with the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently lists output states and side effects. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'Inputs: slug, domain, and token' sentence is somewhat redundant given the fully described schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does so by naming the status values, dns_records, error reason, and webhook side effect. It is nearly complete for an agent to call and interpret the tool, though it does not describe the exact response shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so slug, token, and domain are already documented in the input schema. The description merely restates that slug, domain, and token are inputs and does not add syntax, format, or conditional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: refreshes verification, DNS, and certificate state for a custom domain, then stores and returns it. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as add_domain, list_domains, and remove_domain, which manage domains rather than refresh their live status.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to check or refresh an existing custom domain's status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_domains or after add_domain. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer the workflow context.

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