dilli-email-validation-api-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the DEVA API but does not describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or what the validation entails (e.g., syntax check, domain verification). The description lacks essential behavioral details for effective use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary details. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (a validation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the validation checks, what the output might be (e.g., success/failure, reasons), or any dependencies on the DEVA API. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'email address' but does not explain the parameter's purpose, format expectations, or validation rules. This fails to compensate for the low 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 purpose: 'Validates an email address using the DEVA API.' It specifies the verb ('validates') and resource ('email address'), and mentions the API used. However, since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without indicating scenarios for its application, such as when email validation is needed or any limitations.

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