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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds key behavioral context beyond that: successful verification queues the job and starts its promise, while failure reports what each site lacks.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and outcome, with no redundant restatement. The three proof methods make it dense but each detail is necessary for correct invocation.

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, and the description sufficiently explains both success and failure outcomes. Safety and idempotency traits are covered by annotations, so the definition is complete enough for this job-scoped verification mutation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only indirectly references job_id through 'job's verification.token (get_job)' and does not mention passport_token, so it adds limited parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 action (verify the ownership proof for every site in a job) and the precise precondition: publish the job's verification token via one of three methods, then call this. It also differentiates from get_job by pointing there for the token.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use sequence: every site must already be proved via file, DNS TXT, or meta tag before calling. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives such as prove_domain or check_site, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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