Verify Custom Portal Domain

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

The description adds value over annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by explaining the DNS propagation check, possible statuses, and the retry behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no extraneous words. It effectively uses bilingual text without duplication of 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?

Given the low complexity (1 required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the verification purpose, return statuses, timing expectations, and retry guidance, making it complete for the tool's scope.

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 100% and the schema already describes the 'domain' parameter. The description enhances semantics by providing an example ('portal.miempresa.com') and including bilingual text.

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 clearly states the tool verifies DNS propagation for a custom portal domain, using the specific verb 'Verify' and naming the resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'frihet_portal_domain_add' by mentioning the domain was added via that tool.

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 provides guidance to retry if status is 'pending' and notes that propagation can take up to 48 hours. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, the context of verifying an already-added domain is clear from the association with 'frihet_portal_domain_add'.

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