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

While annotations already signal non-read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds concrete actions—DNS verification and SSL provisioning—that are not inferable from annotations alone. It doesn't go into caveats like duration or failure modes, but it does disclose the core side effects.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and the secondary action. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description could be expected to explain return values or expected effects, but it only states the actions. The tool's prerequisites (e.g., domain already added) are not mentioned, making it slightly incomplete, though the one-parameter scope keeps it adequate.

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 single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Verify') and concrete resources (DNS configuration, custom domain, SSL certificate). It distinguishes from sibling tools like scalix_domain_add and scalix_domain_list by focusing on verification and provisioning rather than creation or listing.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it reference the domain lifecycle (e.g., after adding a domain). It implies usage but doesn't state prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate timing.

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