check_user_domain_verification

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

With annotations only declaring that this is not read-only and not destructive, the description adds real operational context: it requires a Proof account, an API key env var, or an interactive login via start_login before it will work. That auth prerequisite is the kind of thing annotations cannot express. It does not describe idempotency or rate limits, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, action and trigger front-loaded, followed by the access note. No filler, though the access block is slightly dense and could be trimmed.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the trigger condition, and the authentication path needed to invoke it. It omits what the check's result signifies (verified vs. pending), which would be the one remaining nicety.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('session_id' documented as the domain verification session ID), so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter's origin or format beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trigger a check on the domain verification challenge') and clarifies the trigger point (after placing a DNS record or HTTP file). It reads clearly against most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identically named check_domain_verification or get_user_domain_verification_status.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call after placing DNS record or HTTP file.' That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., wait_for_verification or get_user_domain_verification_status) or stating when not to call it.

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