verify_domain_with_credentials

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the Proof account requirement and the need to either set PROOF_API_KEY or complete start_login. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether verification is synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens on failure, which leaves behavioral transparency only partially addressed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, and the usage condition comes immediately after. The ACCESS block is somewhat verbose but provides necessary authentication context for making the tool usable.

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 tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the authentication requirements. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but the simplicity of the tool and the complete schema make this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 covers the single parameter with a clear description: 'Domain ID to verify.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the contextual phrase 'pending domain' adds a little extra meaning.

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 and resource: 'Verify a pending domain using previously stored DNS credentials.' It also distinguishes itself from the generic sibling verify_domain by specifying the precondition 'credentials are already connected,' so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives the usage condition: 'Use when credentials are already connected.' It also explains the authentication prerequisite and how to recover from an unauthenticated state, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use when credentials are not connected.

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