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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/public lookup, nor whether it needs network access, whether results can be partial (missing records), rate limits, or what happens on an unresolvable domain. It only lists what is inspected.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a tight Args block, with the resource scope front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the docstring-style 'Args:' heading is slightly mechanical and a trailing description of the return shape would have earned the same length.

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 partially fills the gap by naming the record types being audited, so an agent knows roughly what the results cover. It still omits return structure (e.g., per-record pass/fail) and any note about the level of detail or partial failures, leaving the agent guessing about the response.

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 0% (the 'dominio' property only has a title), so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Dominio sin esquema, por ejemplo `example.com`' clarifies the expected format and explicitly excludes a scheme like https://. That is meaningful syntax guidance beyond the schema, though only for the single parameter.

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 (audita) and a precise resource scope: the set of email-authentication records (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS, BIMI) for a public domain. An agent can distinguish this from auditar_dominio or auditar_web because the enumerated record types are email-specific, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 through the record list: an agent can infer 'use this for email/DNS mail-security checks on a domain'. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing this over auditar_dominio, and no stated preconditions.

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