Verify Domain Claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification is asynchronous, the claim remains 'pending', and that fetching DKIM records is needed later. It lacks information about timeouts, rate limits, or error states, but overall provides adequate behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states the action, second explains the state, third gives follow-up steps. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the asynchronous nature, required follow-up polls, and steps after completion. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation) or error handling, but overall it provides solid context for an async trigger tool.

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?

There is one parameter 'id' with a schema description. The tool description reinforces that it's the placeholder Domain ID but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Trigger asynchronous DNS verification and ownership transfer' and identifies the resource 'domain claim'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-domain-claim (which creates the claim) and verify-domain (the final step after DKIM records are added).

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 explains when to use (after creating a claim) and provides a clear sequence: poll get-domain-claim for status, then fetch DKIM records with get-domain, add to DNS, and run verify-domain. It implicitly advises when not to use (not before claim creation) and contrasts with the sibling verify-domain.

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