Check one email saved as .eml: sender alignment, authentication results as recorded by the receiving server, and the delivery route. Classifications only — a mismatch is evidence to weigh, not a conclusion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Original filename, for the report header. | |
| file_base64 | Yes | File content, base64-encoded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool produces classifications only, not conclusions, and specifies the exact areas examined. This gives useful context about how to interpret results, though it does not mention read-only behavior or limitations like file size.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds an interpretive nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.
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 relatively simple tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and the nature of results. It lacks explicit statements about permissions or read-only status, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness make this a minor gap.
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 fully describes both parameters (filename, file_base64) with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so it provides no value beyond the schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool checks one .eml email for sender alignment, authentication results, and delivery route. The verb 'Check' plus the specific resource '.eml' distinguishes it from sibling tools that verify PDFs or photos.
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 clearly implies this tool is for .eml email files, setting it apart from the sibling PDF/photo tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, only provides context and interpretive guidance ('Classifications only').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: PDF comparison, email verification, PDF verification, and photo verification. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (verify_email, verify_pdf, verify_photo, compare_pdfs). The pattern is uniform with only a minor pluralization difference.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for document verification. Each tool adds distinct value without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key verification scenarios for PDFs, emails, and photos. Missing are comparisons for emails and photos, but the core functionality is complete.