Verify domain ownership

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it explains the response contains is_accessible, instructs what to do when verification fails (add a TXT record), and warns about DNS propagation delays. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries important behavioral context.

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 well structured and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by usage context, failure handling, propagation timing, and an exception. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: when to use it, what the response indicates, what to do on failure, timing expectations, and an exception case. An agent can confidently invoke and interpret the result.

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 the parameter is already documented as 'Domain to verify ownership for.' The description adds some context by indicating the domain is used for new websites and that free subdomains are excluded, but it does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema already conveys. This matches the baseline for 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 verb and resource: verify ownership of a single domain and return verification status. It also clarifies the practical purpose (checking accessibility before using the domain for a new website). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like v2_getDomainVerificationsDIRECT, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: before using a domain for new websites. It also provides an important exclusion: skip verification for Hostinger free subdomains. It stops short of naming alternative verification endpoints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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