Verify Micro custom domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful conditional-activation context beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what activation entails, what DNS record is checked, or how failures are reported. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that communicates both the verification action and the conditional activation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with annotations and an output schema, the core behavior is captured. However, the description omits practical context such as expected DNS record type, whether the domain must already exist, and any side effects beyond 'activate'—leaving an agent to infer those details.

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 67%, with domainId and confirm already well-described in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it neither compensates for the uncovered path parameter nor significantly improves on the schema.

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 ('Check') and names the exact resource ('the exact domain's DNS proof'), also stating the activation side effect. It clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like micro_domains, micro_domain_add, and micro_domain_remove.

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 conditional 'activate it only when ownership resolves correctly' gives some behavioral guidance, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools or mention prerequisites like the domain having already been added. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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