verify_domain

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 discloses that this performs a live re-check, changes state to verified only on a match, and is not automatic. It does not describe what happens on mismatch or whether the call is idempotent, but the key side effect is clearly stated.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and outcome are front-loaded, and the second sentence provides actionable timing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter verification tool, the description covers the core behavior, precondition, and state-changing effect. The main gap is the absence of an explicit statement about the response or behavior when MX records do not match, but the conditional wording implies no verification flip.

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 documents the single parameter with an example. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, and with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('re-check a domain's live MX records'), a clear target resource ('domain'), and a defined outcome ('flip it to verified if they match'). This clearly differentiates verify_domain from siblings like get_domain_records 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 tells the agent when to call this tool: after DNS has been added and has had time to propagate. It also notes that verification is not automatic. It does not name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use case, but the timing guidance is clear enough.

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