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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the strict boolean behavior (StrictBool rejects 1/'yes'/"true") and explains the active/attached state concept. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention pagination/ordering, but the 'List' verb implies a read operation. The added context goes beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the tool, second provides usage context, third explains the parameter constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema that covers return values. The description covers the filter behavior, the output fields, and the integration with publish_website. It is complete for the complexity involved.

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%, but the description fully compensates. It explains the meaning of available_only (true vs false) and the strict JSON boolean requirement, including rationale. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property of type boolean with default false.

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 clearly states the tool lists the business's custom domains with specific fields (guid, domain_name, active/attached state). It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search_domains', which might also list domains based on search criteria, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use context: passing available_only=true filters to domains not yet attached to any project, and these are the ones publish_website can connect. It also instructs to use a returned guid as publish_website's domain_guid. This is clear usage guidance with a direct alternative relationship.

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