verify_agent_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (websiteUrl must be set) and details the two verification methods with implementation specifics (file placement and DNS record). However, it lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon successful verification.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisite and method details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and methods but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or side effects. For a verification tool with 3 parameters, it provides sufficient context for basic use but leaves gaps in operational transparency.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (agent_id, agent_key, method). The description adds context by linking the method parameter to the two verification techniques described, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies for the parameters.

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 specific action ('verify domain ownership') and the target resource ('for a registered agent'), with explicit mention of the prerequisite ('agent must have a websiteUrl set'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on domain verification rather than other agent or job-related 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (domain verification for agents with a websiteUrl) and outlines two specific methods. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., other verification tools like verify_payment_activation).

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