check_domain_verification

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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description earns credit by disclosing that this is not a passive read – it 'triggers a DNS/HTTP check' – and by stating the account/API-key prerequisite plus the non-obvious note that start_login does NOT grant access. Return content is only gestured at.

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?

Purpose, then side effect, then access requirement – front-loaded and tight, with no filler sentences. Both sentences earn their 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-param check tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effect, and the auth blocker. It could say more about what status values come back or whether repeated calls are rate-limited, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage ('Domain verification ID'), so the schema already carries full meaning. The description adds nothing about the id beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case for one param.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Check the status of a pending domain verification.' The scope qualifier 'pending' and the named side effect distinguish it from start_domain_verification and wait_for_verification, though neither sibling is named 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?

Usage is implied ('pending' verification, i.e. after starting one) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like wait_for_verification or get_domain. The ACCESS block is auth setup, not usage guidance.

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