hosting_verifyDomainOwnershipV1

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the verification process, the response field 'is_accessible', and the need for DNS propagation (up to 10 minutes). Does not mention any destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a read-like operation. Could clarify that no changes are made to the domain, but overall transparent.

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 sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence serves a clear function: purpose, usage context, and skip condition. 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?

For a simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the action, expected response, failure recovery steps, and an exception. It is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'domain' already described. The description adds practical context: what the domain is used for (to check ownership) and the special case of free subdomains, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 'verify ownership' and the resource 'single domain', distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle domains differently (e.g., domains_getDomainDetailsV1, DNS_* tools). It explicitly mentions the purpose of checking accessibility before using for new websites.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (before using domain for new websites) and when-not-to-use (skip for Hostinger free subdomains). Also describes the verification flow: check accessibility, if not accessible add TXT record and retry, noting DNS propagation delay.

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