domain_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully explains why the open-world flag applies: it queries real public DNS and follows forwarding to inspect the 301. It does not disclose whether verification is eventual, how long propagation can take, or what a failure result contains, so it adds modest context but no deeper behavioral detail.

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 with no filler, though 'its 301' is slightly opaque and the sentence compresses two distinct checks (DNS records and redirect response) without structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what verification returns (pass/fail per record, which records are missing, the observed redirect target). It also leaves the required plan_id and the polling semantics of wait_seconds unexplained, which is insufficient for a tool whose purpose is producing a verifiable verdict.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: wait_seconds is documented in the schema, but plan_id has no description anywhere. The phrase 'planned change' hints that plan_id identifies a plan, but the description adds no meaning about format, where the plan comes from, or how polling with wait_seconds affects behavior.

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 uses a specific verb (Check) and a concrete resource (public DNS records plus the forwarding 301 response), which is clearly distinct from write-oriented siblings like domain_apply or domain_rollback. It stops short of tying the check to the plan_id argument, so the agent must infer that the verification applies to a specific plan's planned changes.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus domain_audit or domain_apply, and no indication that it is typically a post-apply check or what to do if verification fails. Usage is only implied by the word 'planned change'.

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