Email Infrastructure Check

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate safety, and the description adds that it returns a score and detailed analysis. No contradictions; the credit cost is also mentioned. However, the readOnlyHint=false is somewhat inconsistent with the read-only nature of analysis.

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 three short, well-structured lines: purpose line, Args, Returns with example and credit cost. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 the single parameter, clear return description (score and detailed analysis), and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 a detailed description for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description repeats this with an example, adding no new meaning 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 explicitly states the action as 'Analyze a domain's email infrastructure' and lists specific protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deliveriq_verify_email and deliveriq_blacklist_check.

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 provides examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or give exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied through the analysis focus, but explicit guidance is missing.

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