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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'update[s] verification status', implying state change. Since annotations cover the main behavioral aspects, the description adds minimal new transparency.

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 concise sentences that fully convey the purpose and usage. No fluff or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with one parameter. The description provides enough context for correct invocation. It doesn't describe the response format, but that's not required for such a simple operation and no output schema is expected.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (id) with 'Unique domain ID.' The description doesn't add further meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('trigger'), identifies the resource ('domain'), and specifies the context ('after DNS records are configured'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like domain_get or domain_update by focusing on verification.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'after DNS records are configured' and for 're-run DNS validation'. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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