Verify Domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool triggers verification, requires DNS configuration, and returns status. However, it does not reveal whether verification is asynchronous, how failures are surfaced, or any rate limits/auth requirements. Some behavioral context is present but insufficient for full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential points: what it does, the prerequisite, and the return value. However, it omits operational details like expected latency or failure behavior, but given low complexity this is not a major gap.

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?

The only parameter (domainId) has a comprehensive description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond identifying 'the domain', so it neither compensates nor detracts; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Trigger DNS verification') and the resource ('custom domain'), distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like add_domain/delete_domain/list_domains which perform different operations.

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 provides a key prerequisite: DNS records must be correctly configured before verification succeeds. This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. Since no other verification tool exists among siblings, this is adequate.

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