get_verification_token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by spelling out the concrete return payload per method and clarifying that it produces a token but performs no verification.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the method-to-output mapping following. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema, the description compensates fully by describing exactly what each method returns. Combined with the schema's site/method docs and the read-only annotation, 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 both params are documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description goes further by mapping each method enum value to its specific output artifact, adding meaning the schema does not provide.

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 and resource (gets the Google Site Verification token) and precisely enumerates what is returned for each method (FILE, META, DNS_TXT/DNS_CNAME). The closing 'Does not verify' cleanly distinguishes it from the verify_site sibling.

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?

'Does not verify' implies the boundary with verify_site, and enumerating per-method outputs tells the agent it must pick a method. However, it never explicitly names the alternative to use when verification is the goal, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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