verify_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs an immediate check with the provider ('right now') and returns fresh status, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only or could mutate state. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage recommendation. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only 2 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could potentially mention that the check is synchronous and might take a moment, but overall it covers the essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'id' and 'sender' are well-documented in the schema). Thus, it meets the baseline without adding additional value.

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 clearly states the action (Re-check a domain's identity/DNS) and the result (return fresh status + per-record verification state). It specifies the resource (domain) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_domain or add_domain.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool 'right after publishing DNS records instead of waiting for the background poll,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for checking current status without triggering a fresh verification.

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