Email Security Analysis

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 usefully discloses relative token cost per mode (10-30 / 200-400 tokens) and that results are cross-validated, but says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, rate limits, or what a domain misconfiguration report actually contains.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information about scope or mode selection. The ALL-CAPS labels and emoji add noise but cost little, and the mode guidance is dense rather than padded.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the analysis scope and mode tradeoffs adequately. It is still thin on what the agent should expect to receive beyond token estimates — no mention of return structure, severity reporting, or what happens with the default 'example.com' domain.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The mode explanations do add selection meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Response detail level', but they are invocation guidance rather than semantic enrichment of the field itself, and the domain parameter is left to 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 names a specific resource (email security) and the exact artifacts analyzed — SPF, DMARC, DKIM — plus the output shape (domain-by-domain breakdown with cross-validation). This clearly separates it from generic siblings like analyze_security_risks, though it never explicitly names a sibling alternative.

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?

It gives concrete selection criteria for the response_mode parameter ('minimal' for simple counts, 'standard' for an overview, 'detailed' for comprehensive analysis) with example questions. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling analysis tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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