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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds optionality and an alternative path, but does not explain side effects, verification flow, or any permission requirements beyond what the annotations imply.

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 short and front-loads the optional nature of the tool. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing action and parameter details.

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 a one-parameter tool with an output-less schema, the description should at least clarify the hostname input and the relationship to verify_domain. Instead, it only says the tool is optional and points to an unrelated alternative, leaving core invocation details incomplete.

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 has one required parameter, hostname, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention hostname or explain its format, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 the domain-control resource but frames it vaguely as 'prove control' rather than clearly stating that it initiates a verification request. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling verify_domain, leaving the exact action ambiguous.

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 explicitly says the tool is optional and not required, and directs users to agent_key instead. That gives clear guidance on when not to use it, though it does not explain the scenario in which requesting domain verification would be appropriate.

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