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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no indication of result volume, pagination, whether records are aggregated per domain, or what happens with an empty range — leaving the one sentence largely a restatement of the name.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no hedging. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of content, so it earns credit for structure rather than for information density.

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 owes the agent some sense of what comes back — a list of DMARC records, per-domain aggregates, volume — and gives none. Combined with an unexplained organizationId and no pagination note, the definition is too thin for a three-required-parameter reporting query.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, startDate and endDate are already documented in the schema as inclusive bounds on reported end dates, so the description's "inclusive range of report end dates" adds no meaning. organizationId is undocumented in both schema (pattern only) and description, and the implication that it scopes results to a single tenant is never stated.

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 ("Get DMARC records") plus the filtering axis (inclusive range of report end dates), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It never names a sibling, so the boundary against download_dmarc_report or list_issues must be inferred from the resource name alone.

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 by the resource name and date-range scope — an agent can infer "use this to fetch DMARC aggregate data for a time window." There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no mention of when download_dmarc_report or get_domains would be the better call.

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