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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond by naming the missing OAuth scope (siteverification), the exact failure surface (error=missing_scope), and the operational workaround. That is precisely the context an agent needs before wasting a call.

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 most decision-relevant fact — that the tool is inactive — is front-loaded before any explanation of inputs. Sentences are dense and earn their place, though the mid-sentence line breaks make the text read as fragmented rather than cleanly structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers every parameter plus the auth/failure state. The only minor gap is that it never says what to do with the returned token (where it is pasted or how it is validated), which matters for the DNS/META flows it describes.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: identifier is either a bare domain (DNS_TXT/DNS_CNAME methods) or a full URL (META/FILE/ANALYTICS/TAG_MANAGER), and workspace is a customer slug that may be omitted when only one exists. The method parameter itself has no schema enum, and the description lists values but does not state the default behavior when method is null.

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 ('Site-Verification-Token holen') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that does the actual verification (sc_verify_site). It also flags its own current inoperability, which no other field would reveal.

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 the tool is currently inactive and returns error=missing_scope, that verification must be done manually in the Search Console for now, and that for ANALYTICS/TAG_MANAGER methods the caller should go straight to sc_verify_site. This is a textbook when/when-not/alternative statement.

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