edf_check_domains

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/open-world profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: async return of a job ID, the single-concurrent-job limit, delay shared across all workers, and that results are provisional candidates. No auth or error behavior is covered, but the disclosure is well beyond 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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers constraint, workflow, and mode semantics. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'bridge share the configured delay' phrasing is slightly opaque jargon but not wasteful.

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 an async job-launching tool with no output schema, the description correctly substitutes by stating the immediate return (job ID) and the polling/export path. The absence of an output schema is therefore compensated, though retry/failure semantics for the job itself are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines what each mode means operationally, restates the 1000-domain cap, and explains that concurrency is 1-7 (default 7) and delay is shared across workers. It omits the delay_ms unit/bounds (250-10000) and any per-domain string format guidance.

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+scope: 'Start one saved background domain-check job (up to 1000 domains)'. This clearly distinguishes it from the single-domain siblings edf_dns_lookup and edf_whois_lookup, which the agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the follow-up workflow explicitly (poll edf_get_job, export with edf_export_results) and a hard constraint ('only one saved job may run at a time'), plus the mode-selection rule for dns_then_whois vs whois_all. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the synchronous lookup siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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