verify_domain

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

Description discloses that it re-checks SPF/DKIM and implies it is not destructive. Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and description aligns without contradiction. Lacks detail on failure behavior or prerequisites beyond DNS records.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding specific value: trigger command, what it checks, and alternative. 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?

Adequate for a simple idempotent verification tool with a single parameter. Could mention if verification is asynchronous or describe the typical response, but the openWorldHint suggests output is unpredictable. Overall, it covers the essential aspects.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic detail for the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides, but the context makes it clear that 'id' refers to the domain ID.

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?

Clearly states the action (trigger verification), resource (domain), and context (after adding DNS records). Distinguishes from sibling 'diagnose_domain' by noting that tool provides a human-readable report.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('after adding its DNS records') and provides an alternative ('Use diagnose_domain for a human-readable report of what is still missing').

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