white_label_config_verify_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral outcome ('On success the domain becomes active for client links'), which is useful state-change information. However, it doesn't disclose failure behavior, polling semantics, or whether it's idempotent. For a zero-annotation tool, the description adds moderate value but misses failure-mode transparency.

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 action, minimal waste. The DNS record format and the success outcome are efficiently conveyed. Could arguably be slightly more compact, but every clause adds meaning.

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?

The tool is a 0-parameter verification action with no output schema. The description explains what it does and the success outcome, but doesn't address what happens on DNS-not-yet-published (does it fail? poll? return a status?). Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should disclose the non-success path more explicitly.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no parameters to describe). Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description correctly explains that the domain comes from a previously-set operation ('returned when the domain was set'), so the agent understands the parameterless contract.

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 (Verify) and resource (custom domain via DNS TXT record), and clarifies the DNS record name format (_storno-verify.<domain>). It distinguishes from white_label_config_get/update siblings by focusing on verification specifically. It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools but the verification action is distinctly conveyed.

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 this is a post-setup verification step ('when the domain was set'), suggesting it should be called after white_label_config_update set a domain. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., DNS record should already be published), or how it relates to retrying or error conditions.

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