Ownership proof to publish

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: the secret itself is never returned. It also enumerates the two acceptable publication mechanisms. It omits whether proofs expire or are regenerated per host, which would complete the behavioral picture.

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, both load-bearing, with the action and its prerequisite front-loaded and the security caveat trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe what comes back, and it only says the proof is for a well-known file or DNS TXT record. It does not indicate whether the response returns a record name and value pair, a URL, or a formatted instruction block — a real gap for a tool whose entire output is the payload the user must publish.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'host' parameter. It says the proof is 'for a host', clarifying intent, but never specifies whether host is a bare domain, FQDN, or must already be registered — leaving the pattern-only schema to do the rest.

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 ('Return the ownership proof') scoped to a host, and names the two publication formats (well-known file or DNS TXT record). It is clear this is the retrieval step of an ownership flow rather than the verification step, though it never names verify_ownership 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?

The phrase 'before active tests can run' gives a concrete precondition that tells the agent when this tool is needed. It stops short of naming verify_ownership as the follow-up step or stating any exclusions, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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