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 full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of checks and that remediation advice is included, and 'Check' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state safety, permissions, rate limits, timeouts, or output format, leaving meaningful behavioral context unaddressed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with a clean colon-separated list of checks. Every element is informative and there is no filler or 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?

For a domain-based read-only security check with a simple input schema and no output schema, the description does well by listing all record types examined and mentioning remediation advice. It still omits any indication of output format, limits, or execution characteristics, but is largely complete for the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain and dkimSelectors) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a domain's email security') and enumerates exactly what is inspected: MX, SPF nested lookup count, DMARC, DKIM key strength, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, plus remediation advice. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling DNS tools like enumerate_dns or lookup_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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the purpose itself, which is a gap for an agent choosing between this and the other dns_intelligence tools.

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