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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: the not_released error code when storefronts are disabled, the 403 for unclaimed workspaces, and the required credential scope. Slight ambiguity remains between the read-flavored verb 'Check' and readOnlyHint=false, but the note that verified=true 'proves' ownership implies state is recorded.

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 with the action and result semantics, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information, but the later sentences are densely packed with parenthetical asides ('else an error with code not_released', the sandbox note), which makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 supplies the return shape (verified, reason, detail) and the failure modes (not_released, 403). Combined with the stated auth and workspace preconditions, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the outcome.

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% and both UUID parameters already document their provenance (from list_storefronts, add_storefront_domain, list_storefronts). The description adds no meaning about how storefront_id and domain_id relate or must match, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 a storefront domain's TXT record now') and immediately explains what a success result means, distinguishing it from siblings like add_storefront_domain, search_storefront_domains, and list_storefront_dns_records. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The word 'now' plus the explanation that verified=true means routing can proceed implies the right moment to call it (after domain/DNS setup). Prerequisites are spelled out explicitly: storefronts must be switched on, a workspace-settings-write credential is required, and sandbox self-registered workspaces are refused with 403. It does not name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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