Verify Domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose that this is a mutating operation that updates verification status and performs several DNS lookups. It omits key behavioral traits an agent would want – whether the check is synchronous or async, typical latency or rate limits for DNS lookups, and what happens when records fail to resolve.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the action and then the concrete checks performed. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a call returns (pass/fail per record, updated status, follow-up expectations). It states the side effect but not the result shape, leaving a meaningful gap for a mutation-with-result tool.

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?

Single required parameter 'id' with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it as the domain ID. The description adds nothing param-specific, but at one fully documented parameter the baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Trigger domain DNS verification') and enumerates exactly what is checked (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC) plus the side effect on verification status. No sibling tool performs verification, so the agent can distinguish it from the domain CRUD tools without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Trigger' – there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g., after create-domain or after updating DNS records), no prerequisites, and no note about repeated calls. However, no alternative tool competes for this action, so the routing risk is low.

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