verify_site

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

The description richly discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations. It explains the asynchronous nature of DNS propagation ('sometimes several minutes'), the failure condition ('fails until the token is actually reachable'), and explicitly states idempotency ('Retrying is safe'). This complements the idempotentHint=true annotation by explaining why retrying is safe. It also implies verification is a non-reversible ownership claim but does not contradict 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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and requirement, the second explains the failure condition and propagation delay, and the third reassures about retry safety. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant phrases exist.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with a full input schema and rich annotations. It covers the prerequisite step, the operational behavior, and error recovery. There is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values because the tool's outcome (ownership claim) is implicit and its behavior is fully disclosed. No critical missing context for an agent to invoke it 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including enum explanations and references to get_verification_token for 'identifier' and 'method'. The description adds context about the token being live and reachable but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Claim ownership once the token from get_verification_token is live.' It uses the specific verb 'claim' with the resource 'ownership' and references a prerequisite tool. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools beyond mentioning get_verification_token, its unique role in the verification workflow is evident from the description and schema.

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 clear usage context: it must be used after obtaining a token from get_verification_token, and it mentions that the token must be 'actually reachable' before verification succeeds. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow dependency is clear. The mention that 'Retrying is safe' provides practical usage guidance for handling failures.

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