Verify domain DNS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it clarifies the operation is a re-check and reports status per record, implying dependency on external DNS propagation. It stops short of noting propagation delays or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Four labeled sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) with zero filler sentences. Each line is front-loaded and earns its place, making the key routing information scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the 'Returns' line adequately signals the return shape (status per record). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter ('id', Domain UUID) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries full parameter semantics. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Re-check a domain's DNS records') and explicitly names what it is not, citing the sibling tools plunk_add_domain and plunk_verify_email. An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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 both an explicit 'Not for' exclusion with named alternatives and a 'Use when' condition ('DNS records were just published and you want to know whether they have propagated'). The selection criteria are unambiguous.

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