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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only intent via the verb 'check' and lists the data points, but it does not disclose whether it works for any domain or only domains under the account, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects (e.g., external queries). This leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the key checks. No wasted words; it earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently captures the core scope (DNS, SSL, email, expiry) for an agent to select it appropriately. It does not explain the return structure, but that is not critical for a straightforward health check tool. Sibling context is available, though not directly referenced.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, with 'Domain to check status for' already explaining its meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond restating that it is a domain health check, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair ('Check domain health') and enumerates distinct aspects (DNS propagation, SSL status, email MX configuration, expiry date). This differentiates it from sibling tools like dns_check or whois_lookup, which focus on individual checks.

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 usage as a domain health overview but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like dns_check or whois_lookup. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so guidance is only implicit.

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