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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool runs checks and returns a result, implying a read-like action. However, it does not specify whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the domain is not pending, or any side effects like logging or triggers.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and outcome, the second provides usage context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it does and when to use it, but lacks details about the result format (e.g., boolean, JSON fields). For a straightforward check, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only parameter 'domain_id' has full schema coverage (100%) with a description already indicating its source ('from create_domain or list_domains'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for covered parameters.

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 clearly states the tool runs TXT+MX DNS checks for a pending custom domain, with a specific verb ('verify') implied. It distinguishes from siblings like create_domain (which sets up the domain) and list_domains (which lists them).

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 instructs to 'Call after publishing the records from create_domain', providing clear context for when to use the tool. Does not mention when not to use it or contrast with all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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