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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals that the tool performs a mutating action (adding DNS records) and explains the fallback to a generic TXT record for unknown services. However, it omits details about side effects (e.g., overwriting existing records), prerequisites (like domain ownership), or the return response. This partial disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences deliver essential info: main purpose, supported services, and fallback. No fluff; the most important action is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and service list but leaves unanswered questions like what the tool returns after adding records, whether it checks for existing verification records, and any DNS propagation guidance. It is a competent description but lacks some operational context.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is described. The description adds extra meaning by enumerating allowed service values and clarifying that unknown services trigger a fallback behavior, which directly affects how the 'token' and 'service' parameters are used. This goes beyond the schema's basic property descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Add DNS records') tied to a clear goal ('verify domain ownership for a third-party service'). It distinguishes itself from sibling DNS tools like 'set_dns' by focusing on verification records and lists supported services, making its intent unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when needing to verify domain ownership for a third-party service. It provides a context-rich list of supported services and even notes fallback behavior for unknown ones, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The scope is evident enough to guide selection among siblings.

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