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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key side effect: on success the launch is queued at its assigned position and date, and that domain records are checked on demand. It does not cover failure behavior, whether tokens expire, whether the call is idempotent, or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and token requirement, followed by rationale and outcome. Dense but no filler; the parenthetical token-source list is long yet informative.

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?

For a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, prerequisites, and the success side effect, but says nothing about what a response looks like or how failure surfaces. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot anticipate the result shape.

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% and the schema documents the single token parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by enumerating where the token comes from (email magic link, meta tag, DNS TXT record), which clarifies valid token sources the schema does not.

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 ('Complete the mandatory ownership verification') and resource (Toolfound submission) with the token as the mechanism. It is distinguishable from the similar-sounding sibling toolfound_check_verification because it explicitly frames itself as completing verification rather than checking it, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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 concrete triggering conditions: use the token from the email magic link, or after placing the meta tag / DNS TXT record. It makes clear this is a mandatory step in the launch flow. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over toolfound_check_verification or what to do if verification is already complete.

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