Get ownership code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful workflow fact that this value gates add_domain, but says nothing about the code's lifecycle — whether it is per-domain or per-account, whether it expires, or where it must be published — which is the behavior an agent would actually need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the prerequisite without any filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-argument read tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the critical dependency on add_domain. The only remaining gap is the shape of the returned value — the description says 'the value' but does not indicate it is a TXT-record style string, and there is no output schema to cover that.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds nothing to explain because nothing exists to explain.

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?

It names a specific verb (gets) and resource (the DNS ownership proof record's value), then immediately anchors it to the sibling tool add_domain. An agent can distinguish it from list_domains or check_account_credit without inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'required before add_domain will succeed' gives explicit, actionable when-to-use context and names the dependent sibling. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g., domains already verified), so it is not a full 5.

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