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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with that: 'Returns the updated setup state' discloses that the call mutates stored setup state rather than being a pure read. It also discloses the probe mechanisms (live plugin connection, DNS lookup, meta tag fetch), which explains the openWorldHint=true behavior. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when verification fails, so it stops short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the core question ('is ownership proven') followed by the mechanism and the return value. Every clause earns its place and there is no boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so summarily ('the updated setup state'), which is adequate for a state-verification tool. Behavior and parameters are well covered; the only gap is failure semantics (timeout, unverified result) on an open-world network probe.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 for siteId and method. The description adds meaning beyond the enum: it clarifies that the plugin-connection probe is a separate path from 'domain verification', which explains why the method enum only accepts dns/meta and why omitting it checks everything ('and/or'). That framing is genuinely useful and pushes past the baseline.

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 (check/verify) and resource (site ownership) and then names the exact mechanisms used: probing the WordPress plugin connection and looking for the DNS TXT record or meta tag. An agent knows precisely what this tool does and how it does it, and no sibling (add_site, add_checks, trigger_scan) overlaps this verification role.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: checking that ownership is proven implies running this after setup or after adding a verification record, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. a site must already be added), and no exclusion or alternative. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent either.

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