Email Security Analysis

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether external DNS lookups are performed, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only mentions analysis and cross-validation without safety or operational details.

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 concise with two clear blocks: purpose and response mode guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The emoji and caps are minor style choices but do not hinder clarity.

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?

The description explains the input and response modes well but does not describe the output format or structure, which would be important given no output schema. It mentions 'domain-by-domain breakdown' but lacks specificity on what the output contains.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds significant value by explaining the meaning of each response_mode option (e.g., minimal for simple counts like 'how many SPF missing?') and providing token length estimates, going beyond the schema.

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 analyzes SPF, DMARC, and DKIM issues with domain-by-domain breakdown and cross-validation, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like security_dashboard or analyze_security_risks.

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 gives explicit guidance for using response modes (minimal, standard, detailed) with token counts, but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools or when not to use it.

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