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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully warns that credentials will be visible in the AI conversation context and explains that authentication is required before the tool can be called. It does not address overwrite or idempotency semantics, so it is not a 5.

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 purpose and privacy warning are front-loaded in two compact sentences, and the access note is operationally relevant. The phrasing of the start_login flow is slightly awkward, but there is no wasted text.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the description covers the operation's purpose, the sensitive-data caveat, and the required authentication flow. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the invocation path is otherwise sufficiently 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including examples for provider and a description for credentials. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific action ('Store DNS provider credentials') and its purpose ('automated domain verification'). It is distinguishing enough at a glance, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like connect_dns_provider or add_verification_provider.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: this tool is for storing credentials for automated domain verification, and it explains the required access preconditions ('needs a Proof account', authenticate via /mcp or start_login). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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