verify_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what the response format looks like, or how verification status is determined. The description simply restates the basic function without adding meaningful behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'verified' means in this context, what verification entails, what the response will contain, or how this differs from simply listing domains. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter meaning, format expectations, or how to obtain domain IDs. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_domains' or 'get_analytics' which might also provide domain status information, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_domains' that might show verification status, there's no indication whether this tool is for checking a specific domain's verification status after adding it, or if it's the preferred method over other listing tools.

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