check_user_domain_verification

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that a Proof account is required and explains how to authenticate, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the check is asynchronous, what side effects occur, whether repeated calls are safe, or what the response represents.

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 brief and front-loaded: the core instruction appears first, followed by a compact access note. Every sentence contributes useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 tool is simple, has one well-documented parameter, and the description covers when and how to call it. However, there is no output schema and no guidance about what to expect after triggering the check or which sibling tool to use next for status, leaving a moderate 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 input schema already fully describes the single `session_id` parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 states a specific action ('Trigger a check') on a specific resource ('domain verification challenge'), and adds sequencing context. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling `check_domain_verification` tool, which could be confused with it.

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?

It explicitly tells the caller when to use the tool: 'Call after placing DNS record or HTTP file.' It also provides access prerequisites and a fallback sign-in path. It does not discuss alternatives explicitly, but the timing and prerequisites are clear.

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