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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the significant consequence: verified=true fires automatic HTTPS provisioning that takes about a minute and does not mean the site is reachable. It also says DNS errors are returned in detail. It stops short of stating idempotency or permission requirements for re-verification.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the check being performed and then the provisioning consequence and follow-up. Every sentence carries operational information; the closing warning against announcing a pending activation is a slight editorial add-on but still actionable.

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 verification-triggering mutation with no output schema, the description covers the async side effects and the follow-up read needed to reach 'active'. The main hole is the identifier parameter, which is left undefined, so an agent still has to guess what to pass.

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?

There is one parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — it is not stated whether this is a domain id, site id, or project id. The description relies entirely on the bare schema name, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the only input the agent must supply.

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 names a concrete verb ('Vérifier') and the exact resources checked: the ownership TXT record and the A/AAAA or CNAME routing. That is enough to separate it from get_domain_status (read) and configure_domain (set up), so an agent knows the intent without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear downstream rule: read get_domain_status until status is 'active', which names the sibling to use and the condition for using it. It does not say when verification should be skipped or re-run (for example, once already verified), so usage guidance stops short of full alternatives/exclusions coverage.

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