Get a verification token

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: nothing is created or claimed, running it against a domain you do not own is safe but pointless, and the token placement is a human step. It also explains why certain verification methods have no token to fetch.

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 tightly written in three short paragraphs, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes either a constraint, a clarification, or a next-step instruction, with no filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool returns, where to place the token, property-type constraints, method availability, and the relationship to verify_site, making it complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining which method applies to which property kind and that method defaults to the sensible one. The site_url format is already well covered by the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the token that proves site ownership and tells where to place it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from verify_site, which is the sibling that performs the actual verification.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by property type: DNS for domain properties, FILE or META for URL-prefix properties, and no token for ANALYTICS or TAG_MANAGER. It also directs the agent to call verify_site after the token is placed, clearly identifying the alternative.

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