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

The description adds crucial behavioral context by detailing the two specific aspects of the verification process—the database record status and the physical file existence on the live website. This adds necessary detail beyond the safety guarantees provided by 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 highly concise and structured as a single direct sentence that front-loads the full functionality of the tool without any fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description successfully defines the complete scope of the verification (CGBB record status + trust.json presence). This provides enough context for the agent to know exactly what outcome to expect based on the input domain.

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?

Since the schema description coverage is 0%, the description must define the function of the single 'domain' parameter. It does so clearly by linking the domain to the verification target. However, as there are no other parameters, it doesn't add information beyond defining the scope of the tool's action, placing it at the baseline score for low coverage.

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 explicitly states that the tool performs a dual check: verifying the live CGBB record and checking for the publication of the trust.json file. This is more specific than a general verification tool and clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_trust_file or check_domain_verification.

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?

While the description defines the scope, it does not explicitly state the conditions under which this tool should be prioritized over others. It is clear what it does, but guidance on when *not* to use it is absent.

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