get_verification_token

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

Explicitly states a non-obvious behavior: 'Minting a token changes nothing on its own.' This is valuable beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, because it clarifies that the tool is safe but also that the verification flow is incomplete until verify_site is called.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: first states the purpose, second and third give method-specific instructions, fourth clarifies side effects. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema, the description covers the critical context: why to use it, how to use it with different property types, and what it does NOT do. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the token format or what the response contains, but the flow is clear enough for an agent to proceed correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about how method relates to property type, but that is also partly in the schema's enum descriptions. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, hence baseline 3.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('the token that proves ownership'), immediately distinguishing this from verification itself. It also pre-empts confusion with the sibling verify_site by explaining the token's role.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use this vs verify_site: 'Publish the token first, then call verify_site.' Also gives per-property-type method constraints (DNS for domain, META/FILE for URL-prefix), so an agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate.

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