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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it is non-destructive, 'reports ... RIGHT NOW', and 'Changes nothing'. This fully discloses the tool's read-only, side-effect-free nature, which is more than sufficient.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose ('Non-destructive dry run'), provides detailed but necessary specifics in the middle, and ends with a crisp 'Changes nothing'. Every sentence contributes to understanding or usage guidance.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the report contents (meta tag found/not found, DNS TXT found/not found, email qualification). It also clearly positions the tool relative to the verification flow, making it fully complete for its simple 1-parameter operation.

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% with a detailed description of the token parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but the context of the dry run makes the token's role clear. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 is a 'non-destructive dry run of ownership verification' and enumerates exactly what it reports (meta tag, DNS TXT, email qualification). This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from the sibling toolfound_verify_submission, which it explicitly names.

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 explicitly says to use it 'to distinguish my deploy is not live yet from wrong token' and 'before calling toolfound_verify_submission'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.

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