Check Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates against the live backend, implying real-time behavior, but does not disclose output format, potential errors, or rate/load implications. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: it names the action, the backend, and the expected result.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description provides enough context to know what the tool does and what it returns ('whether it is blocked'). There is no output schema, so the description still leaves the exact response shape to inference, but a boolean-style result is reasonable for this use case.

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 single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema ('A DNS name such as example.com'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and names a concrete resource ('the live Crab-hole backend') with a clear outcome ('report whether it is blocked'). This distinguishes check_domain from sibling config/validation tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrase 'live Crab-hole backend' implies this is for checking current blocking status rather than inspecting configs or validating proposed changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like validate_crab_hole or list_blocklists, nor does it provide any exclusions.

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