scanner_verify_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the verification method and that it returns success/failure, but omits details like whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires special permissions. Minimal but adequate for a simple check.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: action and return value. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return ('whether verification succeeded') adequately for a simple boolean result. However, it does not specify the exact response format or error conditions. For a single-parameter tool, this is nearly complete.

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% (target_id well documented). The description repeats the context of the parameter (returned by scanner_register_target) but adds no new semantics beyond verifying ownership via DNS/.well-known.

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 action (verify domain ownership) and the resource (target), with specific method (DNS TXT/.well-known check). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scanner_register_target (registration) and scanner_start_scan (scanning).

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?

It implies usage after registration ('previously registered target') but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor provide conditions for not using this tool. No alternative tools mentioned.

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