Verify ownership

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call does not place the token, that failures are usually propagation delays rather than invalid credentials, and that retrying later is the expected response. This substantially reduces the chance of the agent treating a normal propagation failure as a fatal error.

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 front-loaded with the core action and effect, then gives the prerequisite, then adds practical failure guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is 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 an output schema exists, parameter documentation is complete, and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description fills the remaining gaps: prerequisite steps, the write effect, and real-world failure behavior. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing.

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% and the schema already explains method defaults and the site_url format. The description reinforces the prerequisite relationship but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (check for the verification token) and its effect (records this credential as an owner), and names the prerequisite get_verification_token. This clearly distinguishes verify_site from siblings like get_verification_token and unverify_site.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to run get_verification_token first and place the token, and it says this call only checks rather than placing anything. It does not spell out when-not to use it versus unverify_site or update_site_owners, but the sequencing and retry guidance give a clear usage context.

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