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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that verification checks on-demand token methods and that success queues the launch at a transparent position. It doesn't mention failure behavior or idempotency, but provides sufficient context for a verification action.

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 action, and includes both the 'why' (trustworthiness) and the outcome. No unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the required input, the verification methods, and the success effect. It doesn't describe failure messages, but the overall purpose and usage are clear.

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 schema already documents the token parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds context about the token's origin (email magic link, meta tag, DNS TXT record) and that it's checked on demand, enriching the schema's brief description.

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 verifies ownership of a toolfound submission using a token, and explains the successful outcome (queuing the launch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_verification and submit_product, which have different roles.

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?

It explains the token can come from the email magic link or from meta tag/DNS TXT record, and that this call checks them on demand. It also states that verification is mandatory for launched products, implying this should be used before launch. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like check_verification.

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