prufa_verify_discovery_domain

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains idempotency, the return statuses ('verified' vs 'pending'), and that DNS propagation may be needed. It provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. No redundant information.

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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return statuses. It covers the essential behavior for a verification tool but could mention potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., domain must be registered).

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%, providing descriptions for both parameters. The overall description adds value by explaining how the parameters relate to the outcome (status based on DNS resolution), though it does not add per-parameter specifics beyond 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 clearly states it checks the DNS TXT proof for a registered discovery domain, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like prufa_register_discovery_domain and prufa_list_discovery_domains by focusing on 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 implies usage after registering a domain to verify the TXT record. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternative tools for other actions.

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