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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it discloses that verification works by checking a snippet or DNS TXT record and targets pending sites. No contradictions with the annotations.

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?

One sentence, parenthetical clarification, and zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and each word contributes 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 tool with no output schema and safety annotations present, the description covers purpose, target state, and method. It does not explain what happens on success or failure, but this is minor for a simple verification action.

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 provides 0% description coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies domain refers to the pending website's domain, but it does not specify expected format (e.g., with or without protocol) or any constraints beyond 'string'. Partial compensation for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 ('Verify'), a clear resource ('ownership of a pending website'), and the exact mechanism (checks the installed snippet or DNS TXT record). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_site and get_stats, which serve different purposes.

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 description implies when to use this tool: for a 'pending website' whose ownership needs confirmation, with the method listed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when verification is the right step.

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