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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, so the burden is lighter, and the description adds real context: cursor-based pagination ('pass next_cursor to get the next page'), the Europe/Stockholm timezone convention, and a required attribution/licensing notice. It stops short of stating rate limits or ordering guarantees.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then covers return/pagination, then enumerates output fields, then ends with the attribution requirement. Given there is no output schema, the field list earns its space rather than being redundant.

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 carries return-shape disclosure and does it well by listing every field and its type. Pagination and licensing obligations are covered; only minor items like default page size or ordering are absent.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including enum-like tld values and the date format. The description restates the date timezone and the cursor paging convention but adds no semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Dropped .se and .nu domains on a date') and names the exact TLD scope, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like domains_expiring and domains_new. It does not explicitly reference those alternatives, but the 'dropped' framing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the date-scoped purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools an agent might confuse this with (expiring/new/valuable). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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