Verify Domain

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

With no annotations, the description has the full burden. It discloses the async nature and temporary pending state, but does not mention failure scenarios, idempotency, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant text. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple parameter set (one required, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the immediate effect (pending status). However, it lacks information on return values or error handling, which would enhance completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage (single 'id' param described as 'Domain ID'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'trigger domain verification' and specifies the resource 'domain verification in Resend'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `verify-domain-claim` and `get-domain`.

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 covers the basic intent (trigger verification) and notes that it's an async process resulting in 'pending' status. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus `verify-domain-claim`, or prerequisites like ensuring DNS records are configured first.

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