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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although it does not explicitly state 'read-only', the verb 'Show' clearly implies a non-mutating status check. The description adds transparency by listing the specific output components (active verification windows, receiver state, TTLs), giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect.

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. Every word contributes meaning: 'Show' identifies the action, and the three listed items specify the data returned. It is optimally concise and well structured.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone, and it does. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the relationship to verification workflow (e.g., 'use after start_domain_verification'), but this is not essential given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information needed, and the description does not attempt to describe any parameters. The schema already covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and identifies the exact resource (domain verification status) along with the specific information returned (active verification windows, receiver state, TTLs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_domain_verification or get_domain_verification_emails, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to start verification first, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its place among the sibling tools.

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