Get pending IRTP verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by explaining that both the old and new registrant must confirm before the WHOIS change takes effect, which clarifies the meaning of 'pending.' It does not describe the return format, but the annotations plus this contextual process detail make the behavior clear enough.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the supporting context and usage hint follow efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple read-only operation with a single parameter, this description covers the essential purpose, the confirmation process, and the intended usage. There is no output schema, so the description could optionally mention what kind of status is returned, but it's not critical for an agent to call the tool correctly. The information provided is sufficient for a competent agent to decide and execute the call.

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% for the sole parameter 'domain,' which is documented as 'Domain name' in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or format guidance for the parameter, so it does not exceed what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve a pending IRTP verification for a domain') with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the context (WHOIS change requiring confirmation) and explicitly says to use it for checking status. This unambiguously distinguishes it from the cancel counterpart (domains_cancelPendingIRTPVerificationV1) and other domain operations.

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 says 'Use this endpoint to check the status of a WHOIS change awaiting registrant confirmation,' which gives clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is so well-defined that an agent can infer the correct context. The double-confirmation detail further clarifies the scenario.

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