prepared_domain_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the expected latency ('a few minutes'), a recommended polling cadence, the zero-credit cost, and the shape of the returned payload (status/state/roles/failure code/allowance/next).

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?

Purpose and status-query are front-loaded, then the return fields, then the polling cadence and next action. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler or repetition of the name.

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 the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating status, state, roles, failure code/detail, allowance (used/limit/remaining) and 'next'. Combined with the polling and follow-up (extract) guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and act on this tool.

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% and there is a single required 'domain' parameter whose schema text already explains it is the domain passed to prepare_domain. The description reinforces that linkage but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (check) plus a clearly scoped resource: the domain submitted via the sibling prepare_domain, along with the account's monthly allowance. It names prepare_domain and extract explicitly, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings 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 explicit operational guidance: poll about every 30 seconds, preparation takes a few minutes, and call extract again once status is 'ready'. It also states the tool costs no credits, removing cost as a reason to avoid polling.

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