check_domain_credentials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a credential access check and includes an ACCESS note about authentication prerequisites, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose return values, error behavior, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur.

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 concise and efficient: two sentences define the tool and its use case, followed by a short ACCESS block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function before authentication details.

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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and how to authenticate. The lack of return-value/error details is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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, 'id', is fully described in the schema as 'Domain ID to check credentials for,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the 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's action ('Check if stored DNS credentials have access to a domain') and identifies the resource (domain credentials). It distinguishes itself from actual verification tools like verify_domain_with_credentials by framing this as a preflight access check, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 'Use before triggering verification to confirm the credentials work' provides an explicit, actionable usage context. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the guidance is specific enough for an agent to determine appropriate invocation timing.

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