check_domain_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it enumerates every status transition, clarifies that ready is true only when fully active with SSL, and notes failure_reason appears only on failure. It does not mention auth requirements or polling rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a numbered lifecycle, then Args and Returns. Every line carries information the agent needs, and the return enumeration substitutes for the absent output schema rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must document returns — and it lists status, dns_status, ssl_status, payment_status, ready, and failure_reason with their value domains. Combined with the lifecycle flow, nothing needed to call and interpret this tool 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 is 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter, and it does — provision_id is the value returned by provision_domain, which is exactly the provenance an agent needs. It stops short of format details but the one param is fully disambiguated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the current provisioning status of a domain') that is clearly distinct from siblings like provision_domain, list_domains, or release_domain. An agent can pick this tool 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 says 'Call this to poll whether a domain is ready' and lays out the full four-step lifecycle from pending_payment to active, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is the right one and what to expect between calls.

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