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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds concrete context by saying it checks a DNS or HTTPS proof and updates the authorization state, which explains the mutation beyond the annotation flags. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the object of the action, and the resulting state change efficiently.

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 low parameter schema coverage, three required parameters, and no output schema, the description leaves important invocation details unexplained. An agent would not know the semantics of authorizationId or idempotencyKey, nor exactly when to call this tool relative to begin_domain_authorization.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with workspaceSlug described but authorizationId and idempotencyKey left undocumented. The description does not explain what authorizationId represents or how idempotencyKey is used, so it fails to compensate for the large schema coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('previously issued DNS or HTTPS proof') and includes the resulting state transition ('update the asset authorization state'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling begin_domain_authorization, which would be the initiation step.

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 phrase 'previously issued' implies this tool should be used after a DNS or HTTPS proof has been created, but it does not explicitly say 'use after begin_domain_authorization' or contrast with alternative tools. No direct when-not guidance is provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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