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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is low; the description still adds real value by disclosing pagination via next_cursor, per-field semantics (nameservers empty when removed, serial, detected_at) and the mandatory CC BY 4.0 attribution requirement. Missing detail on default result size or ordering is minor.

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 purpose, then pagination, then the column list, then licensing. The field enumeration is long but each entry carries type/semantic content, and the required attribution sentence is not padding.

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 correctly compensates by listing returned fields with types and noting empty-on-removal behavior. Pagination and licensing obligations are covered, leaving only minor gaps such as default page size visibility.

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 tld, date, limit, cursor and tld_in. The description restates the date ('Europe/Stockholm') and reuses the same field vocabulary but adds no parameter syntax or precedence meaning beyond the schema (e.g. how tld and tld_in interact). Baseline 3.

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-equivalent ('New .se and .nu domains') plus a scope (on a date), which clearly separates the 'new registrations' concept from sibling datasets like domains_dropped and domains_expiring. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or naming of alternatives. Usage is implied by the required date and the 'new domains' framing, and pagination is addressed via next_cursor, but the agent gets no routing help between this and the other domain datasets.

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