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

The description discloses several behavioral traits: manual override, idempotency when already verified, returns updated summary, and a token cost. With no annotations, this is useful context, but it does not cover reversibility or error conditions, preventing a perfect score.

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 four concise sentences that cover purpose, usage, behavior, and cost. Every sentence adds value and the information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, prerequisites, idempotency, return value, and cost. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and potential side-effect information, but overall it is reasonably complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters (domain_id and clerk_instance_id). The description adds the instruction to call get_connected_accounts first and reiterates the instance-id usage, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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 action: 'Mark an organization domain's DNS ownership as verified via manual override.' This specifies the verb, resource, and method, making it distinct from sibling tools like update_organization_domain or create_organization_domain.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first') and explains how to handle the clerk_instance_id parameter for specifying a connection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would warrant a 5.

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