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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect ('marks your operator verified') and a real constraint ('public IPs only'), but omits auth requirements, failure/rejection behavior, and whether the operation is repeatable or idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the mechanism/side effect second; no filler. Slightly dense with the parenthetical constraint, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the server does and the outcome, but leaves prerequisite state and failure handling unspecified, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the api_key auth alternatives). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb+resource ('Finish domain verification') and its wording implicitly pairs with the sibling verify_domain_start, so an agent can distinguish the completion step from the initiation step. It is clear, though the sibling differentiation comes from the word 'Finish' rather than an explicit call-out.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Finish' signals this is the second step after verify_domain_start, but the description never states when to call it, what prerequisite state must exist (e.g., token file already published), or what to do if verification fails. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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