Verify domain DNS

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

The description only says 'verify', which implies a check but doesn't disclose what the tool actually does beyond that—whether it queries DNS, updates status, returns a report, or has side effects. The annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive traits, so the description adds little behavioral context, and the readOnlyHint=false annotation is left unexplained.

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 that immediately states when to use the tool and what it verifies. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the title.

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 description should explain what a successful verification looks like and any relevant behavioral nuances (e.g., DNS propagation delays, failure modes, prerequisites like a prior domain_attach). The current description only gives a high-level action, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies that hostname refers to a custom domain attached to a Lizard service, but it does not explain the distinct meanings of project and service, value formats, or how the parameters relate to the action. This is insufficient for a three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('verify') and a clear resource ('DNS configuration for a custom domain attached to a Lizard service'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like domain_attach and domain_delete by positioning it as the verification step, so an agent can tell what it does without opening schemas.

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 explicitly begins with 'Use this when...' and gives a clear trigger condition: the user wants to verify DNS configuration. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but there are no sibling tools that perform DNS verification, so the context is adequate.

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