Dmarc Spf Audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'in one call' and lists the audit components, but does not state whether it is read-only, any side effects, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on invalid domains. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Complete domain email-auth audit in one call') and then lists specific components. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite covering the tool's high-level functionality well, the description is incomplete for practical use. It lacks any guidance on the input parameter (what domain, any flags), does not describe the return value or output format (no output schema exists), and offers no error-handling or prerequisite context. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 schema has one parameter 'input' of type object with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the input parameter at all, leaving the agent completely uninformed about what to provide (e.g., domain name, options). This is a critical omission.

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 performs a comprehensive domain email-auth audit, enumerating specific components (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, BIMI). It's specific about the resource (domain email auth) and the action (audit). Even though the tool name 'run' is generic, the description fully compensates.

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 implies usage for auditing email authentication but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (there are none) or any prerequisites like domain ownership or DNS access. It's clear what it does but not when to invoke it or what conditions apply.

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