check_domain_verification

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 explicitly reveals that the tool is side-effecting ('Triggers a DNS/HTTP check') and that it returns the updated status, and it documents the auth requirement and setup step. It does not mention rate limits or error cases, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and effect, and the second sentence covers access details. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 description covers what the tool does, its side effect, its return value ('updated status'), and the required access setup. Since there is no output schema, a more detailed status vocabulary would be helpful, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already fully documents the single parameter id as 'Domain verification ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but none is strictly needed for such a simple parameter.

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 identifies the operation ('Check the status of a pending domain verification') and adds a differentiator by noting it 'Triggers a DNS/HTTP check and returns the updated status.' This distinguishes it from a pure read-only status tool, though it does not explicitly name a competing sibling to avoid confusion.

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 gives concrete access prerequisites ('needs a Proof account. Set PROOF_API_KEY') and a clear exclusion ('start_login does NOT open this tool'). However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related domain-verification siblings such as start_domain_verification, trigger_verification, or wait_for_verification.

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