Verify ownership

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a Google-side check requiring a pre-placed token and implies an external network call, but it does not state permission/auth requirements, failure behavior, retry semantics, or whether the check is idempotent.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the timing precondition. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema verification tool, the description covers the core action and the prerequisite but omits return/result handling, failure modes, and the mapping between deployment methods and enum values. Adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent.

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 two undocumented parameters. It hints at 'the chosen method' and references meta tag/file and DNS records, which loosely maps to the META/FILE/DNS_TXT/DNS_CNAME enum, but it never explains which values correspond to which deployment nor what siteUrl expects.

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 action ('Ask Google to check the verification token') and resource (site ownership verification), which clearly distinguishes it from gsc_get_verification_token and gsc_add_site. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the verb+resource 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 description gives a clear precondition: run it after deploying the meta tag/file or adding the DNS record. This tells the agent exactly when the tool is appropriate, though it does not name alternative tools or state what to do if verification fails.

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