verify_site

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: retry-with-backoff behavior for deploy/DNS propagation and the alreadyVerified return path. It stops short of stating auth requirements or the full return shape.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the two-phase flow and then the idempotency guarantee. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 usefully discloses the alreadyVerified return value, and annotations carry the external/mutation profile. It is largely complete for a 4-param tool, though it omits any mention of auth prerequisites that a verify call against Google might need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including method enum defaults and skipPrecheck. The description's mention of file/meta/DNS and the precheck concept mirrors rather than extends the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (site ownership), and the two-phase mechanism (local token check, then Google verification) clearly separates it from siblings like get_verification_token (which only fetches the token) and add_site. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 makes the prerequisite implicit but clear: a token must already be live locally before this runs, which routes the agent away from using it before setup. However, it does not explicitly name add_site/setup_site as the preceding steps or state when-not to use it.

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