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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that the tool actively triggers a DNS/HTTP check and returns updated status, and by flagging authentication requirements. It doesn't mention rate limits, failure behavior, or exact response shape, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then behavioral effect, then the access note. Every sentence carries useful information without padding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, return nature, and authentication context. It could add clarity around polling lifecycle or possible domain verification statuses, but these are minor gaps for a simple check tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter, id, described as 'Domain verification ID', so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for this parameter.

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's purpose: checking the status of a pending domain verification and triggering a DNS/HTTP check to return updated status. It names a specific resource and action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar siblings like check_user_domain_verification or get_user_domain_verification_status.

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 provides explicit access and authentication guidance: a Proof account is required, the client must be authenticated, and start_login does not open this tool. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus alternative verification-status tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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