28/28 Agent Service Desk: Fix & Verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'nothing is stored' and, importantly, that the response includes findings, risks, unknowns and concrete remediation steps, which is meaningful since there is no output schema. It stops short of describing result structure or failure behavior for invalid or unresolvable domains.

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 core capability is front-loaded in one dense, well-ordered sentence with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only; nothing is stored' partly repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers both the input scope and the kinds of findings returned. An agent has enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response, though a brief note on invalid-domain handling would round it out.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving an example ('example.com'). The description only reinforces that the scope is one domain per call; it adds no format, normalization or validation details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a concrete verb and scope: it reads one domain's public DNS and reports SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, MTA-STS and TLS-RPT findings. That is specific enough that an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, mention the sibling tools quoteFixVerify and verifyFixVerify or explain how this diagnostic differs from them.

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 read-only framing and the promise of 'the exact DNS changes to fix them' imply that this is the diagnostic step you run before remediation. The description never states when to use it instead of quoteFixVerify or verifyFixVerify, and it gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing commercial terms (EUR 99 net per domain), the non-binding nature of the quote, and the absence of side effects ('creates no order, contract or payment and stores nothing'). The openWorldHint annotation is consistent with an external DNS/email-authentication lookup, and the description adds the crucial guarantee that nothing is persisted.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then the output contents, then the no-side-effects guarantee, then the follow-up instruction. Every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler or repetition of the name/title.

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 still enumerates the return payload (price, scope, acceptance criteria, baseline) and explains what the caller must retain for the later verification step. For a single-parameter read-only tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or chain it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example ('example.com'). The description adds the meaningful constraint that exactly one domain is checked per call, but nothing beyond that about format or normalization rules, so this sits at the baseline.

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 ('Runs the email-authentication check of one domain and returns ... a quote for Fix & Verify') plus the concrete contents of the output (price, scope, acceptance criteria, baseline). It is clearly separable from the sibling verifyFixVerify, which it explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance: call this first to obtain the quote, keep the criteria and baseline, then call verifyFixVerify after the DNS records are published. It does not address when to prefer the other sibling, checkDomain, or whether a prior check is a prerequisite, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the PASS rule (every criterion resolved and no new critical or high finding), the fact that nothing is stored, and the billing caveat that a pass is not an invoice while orders are closed. The 'nothing is stored' claim largely restates readOnlyHint and the closing clause is cryptic, but the pass/fail semantics are genuinely new information.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the pass condition, then trimmed with a short caveat sentence. It is dense but mostly earns its words; the final clause about invoices and closed orders is ambiguous and could be clearer or removed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only covers the PASS case. It does not say what a FAIL response contains (which findings or unresolved criteria are reported) or how new findings are surfaced, which is the main thing an agent would need after calling it.

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%, and the schema already says token, baseline and criteria come from the quote. The description reinforces that the criteria and baseline derive from an earlier quoteFixVerify result, but adds no format, ordering, or partial-match semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: re-runs the domain check and compares results against the acceptance criteria and baseline of an earlier quoteFixVerify result. The dependency on quoteFixVerify is named, which separates it from that sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with checkDomain, so an agent must infer that this is the post-fix re-check rather than a first-time scan.

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?

Usage is only implied: you need an earlier quoteFixVerify result, and the title suggests it follows a DNS change. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of checkDomain or quoteFixVerify, and no stated preconditions for the token or baseline beyond 'from the quote' in the schema.

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