verify_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses little beyond the precondition. It does not say whether verification is asynchronous, whether repeated calls are idempotent or rate-limited, or what happens when verification fails.

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?

One sentence with the action and the precondition front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 low-complexity single-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves open what the call returns (a verification status? a job id?) and whether the agent must poll afterward.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a 'Domain UUID'. The description adds only that the domain must have records configured, which is contextual rather than parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Trigger DNS verification') and resource ('a domain'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_domain and list_domains. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 clause 'whose records are configured' supplies an implied precondition for invocation, which is real guidance. However, it never states what to do instead if records are not yet configured (e.g., check with get_domain first) or how this differs from add_domain at setup time.

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