white_label_config_verify_domain

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

Annotations flag openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining why — it performs an external DNS lookup and, on success, flips the domain to active for client links, which is the state change behind readOnlyHint=false. It does not cover failure behavior, DNS propagation timing, or whether retries are safe despite idempotentHint=false.

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, no filler, with the mechanism front-loaded and the outcome stated second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is checked, how, and what success means. It leaves out the failure path and what a negative result looks like, which is the main remaining gap for a verification 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful framing by clarifying that the domain and its expected TXT record come from prior configuration rather than from this call's input.

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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (custom domain) plus the exact mechanism: checking a DNS TXT record at `_storno-verify.<domain>`. That is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling config tools (white_label_config_get/update), which read or write config rather than performing an external DNS check.

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 phrase 'the DNS TXT record returned when the domain was set' implies the prerequisite sequence (set domain first, publish TXT, then verify), giving clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming white_label_config_update as the predecessor or stating what to do when verification fails.

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