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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context: it initiates an immediate DNS check and describes expected behavior when records are not yet propagated. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise: two short sentences, the first stating purpose and the second detailing immediate execution and expected propagation behavior. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it checks, when to use it, and what behavior to expect. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Both parameters (domain and project) have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description does not add extra parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a connected domain has started working, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_status or check_performance by focusing on DNS propagation of a connected domain.

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 explains that this tool runs the DNS check immediately instead of waiting for a background re-check, giving a clear reason for using it. It also advises that if records have not propagated, that's normal and suggests coming back later, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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