verify_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a verification process, returns a new status, and that 'verified' means sending is unblocked. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if verification fails), rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose, usage guidelines, and return information. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (verification operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining purpose, usage, and return values. However, it could be more complete by detailing error cases or the full shape of the returned domain object beyond status flags.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'id' as 'Domain ID to verify'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by providing an example '{ id: 42 }', but doesn't explain parameter semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Trigger DNS verification for a domain') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_domain' or 'update_domain' by focusing on verification rather than creation or modification. It specifies the exact resource (domain) and operation (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 states when to use this tool: 'user has configured DNS records (SPF/DKIM/DMARC/return-path) and wants PostStack to re-check them.' This provides clear context and prerequisites, distinguishing it from other domain-related tools like 'create_domain' or 'check_deliverability'.

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