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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: success queues the job and starts its promise, while failure returns an error detailing what each site is missing. It does not describe timing, retries, or token expiry, but the outcome behavior is well disclosed.

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 workflow and its trigger condition are front-loaded, and the success/failure consequences are compressed into a single closing sentence. The first sentence is a dense run-on, but every clause carries actionable information and 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining both the success path (job queued) and the failure path (error enumerates missing proofs). Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though rate limits and re-verification behavior are unaddressed.

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 job_id and passport_token are fully documented in the schema, including the passport_token fallback and its pattern. The description adds the source of verification.token (get_job), which is contextual rather than parameter-level, 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 states a concrete action (verify that each site belongs to the job's owner) and the mechanism it checks (a token published as a file, DNS TXT record, or meta tag). It clearly conveys the tool's role in the job lifecycle, though it never explicitly names or differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_job or buy.

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?

It gives a precise precondition ('A website test starts only when each of its sites is proved yours') and the sequence to follow, including three accepted proof methods and a pointer to get_job for the token. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the context for calling it is unambiguous.

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