Verify Custom Domain DNS

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

It adds real behavioral detail the annotations don't carry: the exact CNAME target expected and the A-record fallback with a hint to switch. But the sentence 'Persists the result' describes a state write while readOnlyHint=true asserts the tool does not modify its environment — a direct tension an agent could act on incorrectly (e.g., assuming a retry-safe read that has no persisted effect).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the check itself, then the side effect, then the A-record edge case. Tight overall, with only the side-effect sentence being questionable given the annotation conflict.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety flags, so the description needn't explain return values. It still covers the key behavioral facts (target, fallback, persistence). Minor gap: no mention of what happens when no domain is configured or verification fails outright, which an agent may need to handle.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The relevant input (custom_domain) is implicit server-side configuration rather than a parameter, which the description makes clear by calling it 'the configured custom_domain'.

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?

States a specific verb (check/verify) and resource (the configured custom_domain's DNS), plus the exact expected target (api.astroway.info via CNAME). No sibling tool in the White-label group does DNS verification, so it is trivially distinguishable from astroway_whitelabel_config, logo, and preview.

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?

Usage is implied: it operates on the 'configured custom_domain', so an agent can infer it runs after whitelabel_config sets a domain. However, it never says when to prefer this over other whitelabel tools, never states the prerequisite explicitly, and gives no guidance on re-running it (though idempotentHint suggests repeatability).

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