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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds crucial context: this replaces the previous challenge and clears its verification, requires domain control, and warns about not publishing secrets. These details go well beyond the 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and sequencing. Each sentence adds distinct operational value, though slightly more compact phrasing could improve readability.

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?

Covers the full workflow: issuance prerequisites, contact URL requirements, replacement behavior, next steps (publish TXT, then kya_verify), and security constraints. With no output schema, it sufficiently explains the expected return (txtValue at dnsName). Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains parameters thoroughly, but the description adds practical guidance: contact is optional and reuses existing when omitted, and it is especially recommended on first OAuth connection. It also implicitly explains that secret and clientId are authentication alternatives.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (issue a fresh DNS TXT challenge) scoped to the authenticated agent identity. The description clearly distinguishes this from siblings like kya_verify and kya_status by naming them explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (commerce.order scope, OAuth, HTTPS contact URL on controlled domain), states the default when contact is omitted, and directly instructs to call kya_verify next. It also clearly excludes identity/spending implications, preventing misuse.

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