domain_check_verification

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

The description offers no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. It does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive (though annotations say destructiveHint=true), what data is affected, or any required permissions. The phrase 'Python SDK parity' is too vague to count as meaningful disclosure.

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 extremely short, but it is not effective conciseness. It is under-specification: the single phrase 'POST /api/v2/blist/domains/verify (Python SDK parity)' carries no informative value. A concise description should still convey the tool's purpose, not just the endpoint.

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 complexity (two parameters, no output schema, annotations indicating potential destructive behavior), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the operation, input requirements, expected outcomes, or any caveats. Users cannot safely invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 description coverage is only 50%, yet the description adds nothing about either parameter (domain or dry_run). It neither explains the meaning of 'domain' nor elaborates on 'dry_run'. The schema already provides a Russian description for dry_run, but the description fails to compensate for the missing context elsewhere.

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 is merely the HTTP endpoint 'POST /api/v2/blist/domains/verify' with a mention of 'Python SDK parity'. It does not state what the tool actually does, such as verifying a domain or checking its status. The tool name hints at domain verification, but the description fails to articulate a clear verb and resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like domain_add or domain_remove. Users are left without any context for selecting this tool.

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