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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it repeatedly declares the operation changes nothing, and it enumerates exactly what the checker reports per method (meta tag presence, DNS TXT presence, magic-link eligibility), with the exact expected values surfaced. This is the behavioral detail an agent needs to trust and interpret the call.

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?

Front-loads the non-destructive framing, then the per-method output, then the decision it enables. Every clause earns its place despite the length; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does so concretely (meta tag found/not with expected tag, DNS TXT found/not with expected record, email magic-link qualification). For a one-parameter dry-run tool this is 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents token fully. The description alludes to tokens ('wrong token') but adds no format or source detail beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('non-destructive dry run of ownership verification for a Toolfound submission') and explicitly frames itself as the read-only counterpart to toolfound_verify_submission. An agent can distinguish it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('distinguish my deploy is not live yet from wrong token') and names the alternative to call afterward ('before calling toolfound_verify_submission'). Nothing is left to inference.

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