revnuvo_verify_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail by mentioning live HTTP + DNS evidence and on-demand execution, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the pass is read-only. This is a moderate gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 short sentences carry purpose, evidence type, and usage context with no filler. The core action is front-loaded before the use-case guidance.

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 is simple (one required parameter), and the description covers what and when, but with no output schema it does not hint at the return shape or how a failed verification is represented. For a verification tool this is a meaningful but not critical omission.

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 'domain' as the company domain to verify. The description repeats 'domain' without adding format or normalization details, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 and resource: 'verification pass of a domain' with 'live HTTP + DNS evidence.' It clearly differentiates from sibling retrieval/monitoring tools by framing itself as an on-demand confirmation step, so an agent can tell it apart from get/search/monitor tools.

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 phrase 'Use to confirm a signal before acting on it' provides an explicit when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but it is enough to route an agent toward verification rather than search or monitoring.

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