Verify Domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the process is asynchronous and that the domain status temporarily becomes 'pending', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention failure outcomes, permissions, or how to check the final status, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded ('Trigger domain verification in Resend'), and it includes only relevant details about the asynchronous process and pending status. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter signature, lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and its immediate effect. It could be enhanced by mentioning how to verify the final result or differentiating from verify-domain-claim, but it is largely complete.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Domain ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it provides no value 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 'Trigger domain verification in Resend' and explains the verification process, checking DNS records. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-domain or verify-domain-claim by focusing on the specific action of triggering verification and its effect on domain status.

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 provides clear context: it starts an asynchronous verification process to check DNS configuration, implying it should be used when the user wants to initiate verification. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like verify-domain-claim, so it lacks exclusions.

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