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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and performs well: it reveals that proof targets are derived from the record and 'never chosen freely', that a secret is returned, and that verification is a prerequisite for unlocking benefits. It omits edge-case behaviors such as what happens when a record is already claimed or when claiming fails, preventing a 5.

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 front-loads its purpose and constraint before the output and workflow details, with every sentence earning its place. The closing benefit chain ('owner edits... 15-minute checks, status alerts, the status badge, and an owner-scoped API key') is slightly long but informative, as it conveys why an agent should complete the claim flow.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description narratively covers the return contract (proof, claim id, and secret) and the full success-path workflow. Missing failure-mode and precondition details (e.g., auth requirements, already-claimed records) are the main gap, but nothing critical is absent for a moderate 3-parameter tool.

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%, setting a baseline of 3, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains how targets are derived (endpoint host, homepage host, or repository) and maps the proof formats to the method enum values. This enriches an agent's understanding of all three parameters rather than merely restating the schema.

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 specific action ('Start proving that you operate an indexed agent') on a specific resource, and sharply differentiates itself from the sibling verify_claim by explicitly sequencing this tool before verification. It also specifies the exact output forms (DNS TXT record, /.well-known/ file, or repository file), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Publish the proof, then call verify_claim' names the follow-up tool, and it establishes the when-to-use context of proving ownership to unlock owner features. However, it does not state exclusions or alternatives for other siblings such as search_agents or submit_agent, so it falls short of a 5.

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