Spam Trap Analysis

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and other safe operation hints. The description adds behavioral context: credit cost per call, and outlines the return structure (risk level, trap type, confidence score, 13 signals). This clarifies the output beyond schema, but does not delve into error handling or rate limits.

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 and well-structured with clear sections: Args, Returns, Examples, Credit cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No extraneous information.

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 simple tool (single parameter, detailed schema, good annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return values (risk level, trap type, confidence, all 13 signals) and provides an example, making it easy for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'email', including format and example. The description repeats this and adds a usage example. With complete schema coverage, the description does not add significant new semantic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze an email address for spam trap risk using 13 signals'. It specifies the resource (email address) and action (analyze for spam trap risk), with examples and a list of signal types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deliveriq_verify_email or deliveriq_blacklist_check, which have different focuses.

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 implies usage for analyzing spam trap risk and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or which sibling to choose for other email checks). It includes a credit cost note but lacks exclusions or alternative tool guidance.

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