sender_domain_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the polling behavior ('Polls SES for pending domains'), which adds value beyond a simple 'check'. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any authorization requirements. The polling behavior is the main additional insight.

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 consists of two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds the polling behavior. Every word is meaningful, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no output schema). The description adequately explains the purpose and the polling behavior. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. It also does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the domain must be registered). Overall, it is acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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 schema has one parameter (project_id) with a description ('The project ID'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, a baseline score of 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 tool checks the verification status of a project's custom sender domain, specifying the action 'Check' and the resource 'custom sender domain'. It also mentions polling SES for pending domains, which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_custom_domains (which lists all domains) or register_sender_domain (which initiates registration).

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 implies usage for checking the verification progress of a specific domain, especially one that is pending (via 'Polls SES for pending domains'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling tool list_custom_domains serves as an implicit alternative for listing all domains.

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