Get Transfer Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the specific states it inspects (PENDINGDNS hold, DNS zone existence, record count, current delegation, next step), which is beyond what the annotations provide. It stops short of explaining timing or any failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the enumerated state list and the usage note. The colon-separated inventory is dense but each clause is informative; slightly long, though nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back — and it does, enumerating the transfer state, DNS zone existence, record count, delegation target, and the recommended next step. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter carries its own description including an example value, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb (report) and a precisely scoped resource (where a held inbound transfer is and what it's waiting on), then enumerates the exact state dimensions inspected. An agent can distinguish this from get_transfer_status, list_transfers, and prepare_transfer without opening any 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?

Explicitly frames the use case: 'Use this to resume a no-downtime transfer instead of tracking that state yourself.' That gives clear context for when to reach for it, but it never names the alternative tools (e.g. get_transfer_status) or a when-not condition, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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