Get domain verifications

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the status scope ('pending and completed') and signals a collection result, but discloses nothing further such as pagination, ordering, or what a verification record contains. This is adequate but minimal given annotation coverage.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter read-only list, the description covers the essential task, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and a related sibling (domains_getPendingIRTPVerificationV1), it would benefit from clarifying what counts as a domain verification and when to use the DIRECT variant.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description nonetheless adds relevant output scope by naming the statuses returned.

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 uses a specific action ('Retrieve a list') and names the exact resource ('domain verifications') with status scope 'pending and completed.' It is clear at face value but does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like domains_getPendingIRTPVerificationV1, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

No sentence explains when to call this tool instead of the other verification/domain tools. The phrase 'pending and completed' implies broad status coverage, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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