get_verified_domain

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds that authentication is via API key, there is a max of 10 concurrent requests, and that it is read-only and safe to retry. No contradiction 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 and well-structured with separate sections for usage, authentication, parameters, and return value. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 simple tool (2 params, read-only, with output schema described), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when/not to use, parameters with examples, authentication, rate limit, and return fields. No gaps.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed parameter semantics including examples (e.g., 'domain_name' is a sending domain like 'mail.example.com'), origin hints for values (from list_verified_domains), and guidance for optional params (account). This fully compensates for the schema lack.

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 retrieves the full verification and authentication record for a single sending domain. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('verification and authentication record'), and distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_verified_domains' which is used to browse all domains.

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 explicitly states when to use (when you have a domain name and need its exact state before sending) and when not to (use list_verified_domains to browse). It provides a clear alternative, making it easy for the agent to decide.

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