verify_domain

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is thin. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations do not: the account/API-key requirement and the fact that a session opened by start_login is what unlocks this tool, which is meaningful for an action-triggering call.

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 is front-loaded in the first sentence followed by a one-line elaboration, and the ACCESS requirements are separated into their own block. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy, though the two-block format is slightly verbose for a single-parameter tool.

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 trigger with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the auth prerequisites needed to invoke it. It does not explain how the result is surfaced (given no output schema) or differentiate from sibling verification tools, leaving a minor 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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'Domain ID to verify'. The description adds no format or source detail for the id, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas applies.

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 domain verification') and clarifies the mechanism ('Checks DNS records or other verification method to confirm domain ownership'). This is clearly more than a restated title, but it does not distinguish itself from the many related siblings like start_domain_verification, check_domain_verification, or verify_domain_with_credentials.

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 ACCESS block gives real preconditions (needs a Proof account, set PROOF_API_KEY, or sign in via start_login), which is useful setup guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous alternative domain-verification siblings, so the when-to-use dimension is only implied.

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