Get Verification Key

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

Annotations already say this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the DNS propagation window is typically 5-15 minutes, and the returned record contains the exact TXT name, type, and value. It does not say whether the key is stable or rotates, which slightly limits it.

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 sentences: what it returns, followed by an actionable workflow, then a note about the return payload. The return shape is mentioned after the workflow rather than up front, and the ellipses are minor, but every sentence carries real information and there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema, this description carries only what structured fields cannot: the DNS setup procedure and propagation timing. The one gap is whether the key is per-account or per-domain and whether it rotates, but for a simple read tool it is otherwise complete.

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 tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline case for a 4. The empty schema leaves nothing to misinterpret, and the description correctly does not invent parameter-like 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the account's domain verification key.' That is clearly distinct from get_domain, list_domains, and create_domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so the differentiation comes from the resource name rather than from a stated comparison.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use path: get this key, publish it as a TXT record at the registrar, wait for propagation, then call create_domain. create_domain is named as the downstream tool, but there are no explicit exclusions or guidance about re-fetching the key, e.g., whether it changes over time.

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