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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the general action (checks DNS or other verification) and the auth requirement, but it does not reveal potential side effects, whether verification is asynchronous, or what happens if the domain is already verified or DNS is missing.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a separate ACCESS line for prerequisites. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns or whether it is synchronous/asynchronous, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Given the large sibling set, it also fails to route to or away from related verification tools, leaving the agent under-informed for a correct invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter ('Domain ID to verify') and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantics beyond that, 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?

The description states a clear action ('Trigger domain verification') and resource (domain), and elaborates that it checks DNS records or another verification method to confirm ownership. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like start_domain_verification or check_domain_verification, so an agent must infer the exact role.

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 includes a clear prerequisite: a Proof account and authenticated session, with instructions to authenticate or sign in first. It does not, however, provide any when-to-use guidance versus the many sibling verification tools (e.g., verify_domain_with_credentials), so an agent may select the wrong tool.

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