verify_domain

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about DNS propagation time and the conditional verification behavior, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and outcome, then adds the retry guidance. Every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description is adequate. It covers the core action, the conditional outcome, and retry rationale. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the tool's purpose is simple enough that this is not a significant 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 single parameter domain_id is fully described in the schema as 'Domain ID returned by add_domain'. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not, which is acceptable.

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 DNS records') and the outcome ('mark it verified if they resolve'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_domain and list_domains. It is specific about the resource and condition.

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 clear usage context: it should be used to re-check DNS after adding a domain, and retries are safe due to DNS propagation delays. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical invocation.

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