check_domain_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does add some value by noting this uses 'Check (probe=false)' and that it is an alias of get_cleared_status. This implies a non-mutating verification action, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or what the response contains. It is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 one tight sentence with the main action front-loaded and routing context appended. The phrase 'sandwich step 1' is cryptic, but overall there is no fluff and every clause contributes.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential coordination pointers: alias identity and an explicit alternative for a specific use case. It leaves 'sandwich step 1' undefined and does not describe the return value, but for a simple check tool this is largely acceptable.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single slug parameter with an example. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond calling it a 'domain/service', which roughly matches the schema's description. This is a baseline 3 case where the schema handles the burden.

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 action ('Check if a domain/service is verified on ClearedIndex') and the resource, and it differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming this tool as an alias of get_cleared_status and calling out lookup_merchant as the preferred alternative for a specific workflow. The purpose is unambiguous even though 'sandwich step 1' is jargon.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: it notes this tool is an alias of get_cleared_status and that lookup_merchant should be preferred for 'sandwich step 1'. However, the condition 'sandwich step 1' is not explained, and it doesn't enumerate when to choose this tool over get_cleared_status, so the guidance is present but slightly under-specified.

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