Get Domain Verification

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add contextual behavior. It confirms a read operation but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if records differ by environment) or any rate limits. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core action without wasting words, making it ideal for quick scanning.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, clear annotations, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose. It does not specify the record type or usage context for verification, which might be inferred from the output schema but is not explicit. Still, it is largely complete for a straightforward read operation.

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% (domain_id is documented), so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. The description does not repeat or clarify the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get DNS verification records for a domain' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like kinsta.domains.list or kinsta.domains.add. However, it could be more precise by specifying the type of records (e.g., TXT records) to avoid ambiguity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is implied, but the lack of directed usage context reduces its utility for tool selection.

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