dns_intelligence__check_email_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the specific checks performed and that remediation advice is included, but it does not state read-only behavior, network access requirements, rate limits, or output format. 'Check' implies a safe read operation, but this is not made explicit.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause identifies a concrete email-security control or capability, and the key purpose is stated first.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job listing exactly what is checked and noting remediation advice. It stops short of explaining the return structure or pass/fail semantics, but it is complete enough to know what the tool does.

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 in the schema. The description implies the domain parameter and mentions DKIM checks, but does not add syntax or selector-handling details beyond what the schema provides; 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check a domain's email security.' It then enumerates the exact email-security controls checked (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM key strength, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT), which clearly distinguishes it from generic DNS siblings such as lookup_dns or enumerate_dns.

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 the tool is used for email-security checks but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over dns_intelligence__lookup_dns or dns_intelligence__audit_domains.

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