Go-Live Readiness Checklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond those: it is a passive multi-probe that still resolves and fetches, requires no API key, is rate-limited, and maps outcomes to verdicts ('Any failing essential yields not_ready; only cautions yields caution; all clear yields ready'). No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then verdict logic, then operational constraints. It is denser than necessary in places—the five-essential list and the verdict mapping both earn their place, but the prose could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what, when, how verdicts are computed, operational constraints, and the return summary. Nothing needed to select or invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 for the single required parameter is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description connects 'domain' to the launch-readiness checks, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents, such as scheme/path stripping.

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 action ('Check whether a domain is ready to launch or migrate') and a concrete deliverable ('a go/no-go verdict') over five enumerated essentials. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming security_scan and the individual tools, so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('right before flipping DNS to a new server, or to confirm a migration has landed'), frames the exact question it answers ('can I switch over yet?'), and routes to alternatives ('use security_scan for a security posture grade or the individual tools for depth'). This is model usage guidance.

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