verify_verified_domain

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds context: 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Respects read-only and dry-run modes.' This goes beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail failure modes or state changes.

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: a summary sentence, prerequisite, details, then Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the core action and includes only necessary 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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the workflow, parameters, authentication, concurrency limits, and return values. The output schema is described in the Returns section, so the tool is fully documented for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters, including examples and sources (e.g., domain_name from list_verified_domains, code from email, account from list_accounts). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Complete domain verification by submitting the code emailed to the verification address.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_verified_domain, list_verified_domains, etc., by focusing on the final step of verification.

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 instructs to run create_verified_domain first to trigger the email, then pass the code. It also mentions API key authentication, max 10 concurrent requests, and respect for read-only/dry-run modes. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or alternatives.

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