Get Domain Verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the records are DNS verification records for a domain, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or any domain-specific behavioral details beyond that.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the action, resource, and scope with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete: it names the action, resource, and scope. The only minor gap is that with no output schema, it does not describe what the returned verification records look like, though 'Get DNS verification records' reasonably implies the return content.

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 meaning of site_domain_id is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about where the ID comes from, its format, or any constraints, so it does not go beyond the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('DNS verification records for a domain'). It is distinct from sibling domain tools like kinsta_domains_list, kinsta_domains_add, and kinsta_domains_delete, which handle domain listing and management rather than verification.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving DNS verification records, which is a reasonable usage cue. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over kinsta_domains_list or other domain-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing an existing domain ID.

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