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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those hints: this is a polling operation whose pending state is expected, and its result gates the handover flow. It does not describe the shape or distinction of the returned statuses, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction follows immediately. Every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only check with strong annotations, the description covers the action, the branch behavior, and the downstream gate, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of characterizing the possible return states (verified / pending / failed), so the agent must infer the response vocabulary.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that attemptId comes from start_domain_control_verification. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lifecycle detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: checking whether the DNS TXT record for a Convika domain control verification attempt has propagated. It is clearly distinct from get_domain_status and start_domain_control_verification by its propagation-checking scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly to force the distinction.

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 states the condition under which the result is actionable ('If still pending, tell the user to keep the TXT record in DNS and check again shortly') and gives an explicit exclusion against a named sibling workflow ('Do not activate handover until this tool reports verified'). When-to-use, what-to-do-on-pending, and the gating condition are all present.

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