Verify domain (pre-flight)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains what the tool checks and clearly notes its limitation ('only verifiable server-side; rebuilding the app and on-device checks are still required'). This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's scope.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the action. It conveys all necessary information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the purpose, usage timing, and limitations, but it does not describe the return value or result format. Since there is no output schema, an agent cannot know how to interpret the tool's result (e.g., success/failure report), which is a significant gap for a verification tool.

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 has full coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a description. The tool description doesn't add much detail about the parameter beyond implying it comes from a previously created/updated domain. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it fetches the domain's generated association files and checks them against configured app identifiers. It lists specific checks (reachable, valid JSON, appID/package match, fingerprints, paths), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_domain or create_domain.

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 explicitly states when to run the tool: 'Run after create_domain/update_domain.' It also provides context by noting it only verifies server-side and that on-device checks are still required. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives.

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