check_domain_verification

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that a non-completing lookup is TRANSIENT and never a verdict about DNS, that on success the result carries the DMARC reporting record, and that nothing here is applied to anyone's DNS — a human publishes every record. It also instructs the agent to print records exactly as returned and get approval before using any DNS tool. This is rich behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) do not provide. 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers the tool's purpose, the three possible outcomes, the transient nature of incomplete lookups, the DMARC record side-effect, the exact-printing rule, and the human-approval requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds critical behavioral constraints. Slightly long, but justified given the complexity of the tool's semantics.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the result means, how to interpret edge cases, what side effects occur, and what to do with the returned records. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the exact output structure, but the description's explanation of the result's meaning compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the domain must be one of the token account's VERIFIED monitored domains, that other names are refused as not found, and that ownership is never disclosed. This is valuable semantic context that the schema's description only partially conveys.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource (ownership TXT record for a domain the user has added), and a specific outcome (mark it verified when visible). It also distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like check_propagation and check_record by focusing on ownership verification and the verification state transition.

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 explains when to use this tool (to check whether the ownership TXT record is visible yet and mark it verified) and what the result means, including how to distinguish 'not published yet' from 'published with the wrong value' from 'lookup did not complete'. It also gives a clear exclusion: the domain must be one of the token account's VERIFIED monitored domains, and any other name is refused. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the context is so specific that an agent can route correctly.

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