Comprehensive Domain Intelligence

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral info: credit cost (1 credit) and rate limit (10 req/min), which are not in annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured and concise: purpose statement, usage guidance, args/returns/examples, and cost/rate limit. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the return components (MX, DNSBL, etc.) and trust score. It also includes credit cost and rate limit. Minor missing specifics about trust score format, but overall complete for its complexity.

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%, and the description repeats the parameter 'domain' without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a comprehensive intelligence report for a domain and lists specific components (MX, DNSBL, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is a combined report and directs users to more specific tools if needed.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for a combined report) and when to use alternatives (specific tools like deliveriq_blacklist_check or deliveriq_infrastructure_check for single aspects). This provides clear guidance.

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