Trạng thái giữ chỗ tên miền

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the auth nuance (token required only when not logged in) and by pointing to the next_step field as the follow-up driver.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the token requirement. No filler, though the final next_step hint is slightly tangential to the invocation itself.

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 a read-only status check with no output schema, the description tells the agent what states are reported and directs it to next_step, which is sufficient to call and interpret the tool. It stops short of describing response shape or error conditions.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'required when not logged in' note that the description repeats. The description adds only marginal meaning (claim_token OR guest_token) over what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb (Xem/check) and resource (reservation), and enumerates exactly what is inspected: payment received, claimed, still valid. It is clearly distinguishable from reserve/claim/release siblings, though it never names those siblings explicitly for contrast.

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?

It gives clear conditional context: guests must pass claim_token (or guest_token) obtained from cloud_domain_reserve, while a logged-in owner does not need it. It also routes the agent to read next_step in the result. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, keeping it 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.