hosting_verifyDomainOwnershipV1

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that the tool checks domain accessibility, returns an 'is_accessible' field, and requires adding a TXT record if inaccessible. It also mentions propagation timing. While it doesn't detail the TXT record content or error handling, it provides adequate transparency for a simple verification 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?

The description is concise at 5 sentences, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, recommending usage, explaining the response, instructing on retry, and noting a skip condition. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary 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?

For a low-complexity tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, behavioral expectations (including propagation delay), and a specific exclusion case. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'domain' described as 'Domain to verify ownership for.' The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 tool's purpose: 'Verify ownership of a single domain and return the verification status.' It distinguishes this from other tools like domain availability checking and explicitly mentions when to skip verification (free subdomains), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it tells when to use the tool (before using a domain for new websites), what to do if verification fails (add TXT record and retry), and notes a propagation delay of up to 10 minutes. It also advises skipping verification for Hostinger's free subdomains, offering clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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