Get verification token

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of what each method yields (meta tag, HTML file name/content, DNS TXT record), which tells the agent what it will get back and how to use it. It does not describe siteUrl handling or the DNS_CNAME case, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by per-method return detail and the one hard constraint (DNS_TXT for sc-domain), so every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work of explaining what each method returns and the sc-domain constraint. The DN_CNAME method and siteUrl format are left unaddressed, but nothing critical to a correct call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it only partially does. It explains three of the four 'method' enum values (META, FILE, DNS_TXT) but omits DNS_CNAME entirely and says nothing about the required siteUrl parameter.

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 (Get) and resource (ownership verification token), and goes further by explaining what each method returns — a meta tag for META, file name/content for FILE. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling gsc_verify_site, which presumably performs verification rather than fetching the token material.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance tying methods to property types: META for URL-prefix properties and DNS_TXT required for sc-domain properties. It doesn't explicitly frame when to call this tool versus gsc_verify_site or gsc_add_site, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage, but the method-selection context is strong.

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