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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the HTTP method, headers, body, timeout, response expectations, status-code handling, side effects of re-registration, and the consequence that tasks are blocked until verification passes. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence adds essential detail: protocol, constraints, rate limits, side effects, and blocking behavior. It is well-structured with sequential steps and warnings, and while long, it is not verbose—each clause is necessary for correct usage.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the exact HTTP request, expected response, timing, rate limits, secret rotation, and the implication for task creation. An agent would have all information needed to correctly perform verification and anticipate outcomes.

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?

The schema description for the id parameter is complete ('Destination id, as returned by register_destination'), giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by referencing {id} in the endpoint path but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states that verification requires calling POST /api/destinations/{id}/verify and describes the exact challenge-response protocol, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from register_destination and other sibling tools by focusing on the verification action.

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 explicit timing: call within 15 minutes of registering. It also warns against re-registering pending URLs and explains the daily allowance, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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