gsc_get_verification_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the sequencing relationship with gsc_verify_site and the constraint that domain properties cannot use FILE or META. It stops short of return format or rate-limit details, but the added constraints are substantive.

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: purpose first, then usage/sequencing, then the domain-property exception. Front-loaded and free of 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema absent but a described return (the token plus placement steps), the definition covers purpose, preconditions, sequencing, and method constraints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine meaning on top. It explains the valid enum values in context and, critically, the constraint that domain properties must use DNS_TXT — semantics the schema's plain enum does not convey.

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 states a specific verb (request) and resource (site-verification token) and enumerates the four supported methods. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling gsc_verify_site by defining the token-fetching step that precedes verification.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ("when the user needs the token before they can prove they own a site") and when to call the alternative ("Call gsc_verify_site only after the token is in place"). It also gives a method-selection rule for domain properties, leaving nothing to inference.

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