network_dmarc_record_checker

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions 'lookup and validate' but does not explain what validation entails, any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The reference to 'describe_tool' for full guidance indicates the description itself is incomplete.

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 short but includes extraneous 'Menu ID' information and a reference to describe_tool. While not overly verbose, it could be more concise by omitting these details.

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 unsophisticated tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the validation process, or how to use the optional worker_id. The note to 'use describe_tool' suggests the description itself is not self-contained.

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 only 33% (only worker_id has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning. For example, the 'action' parameter has an enum but no description of what 'lookup' does, and 'domain' has no description. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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: 'Lookup and validate a domain's DMARC DNS record.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_spf_record_checker or network_mx_record_lookup.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that other DNS record lookups require different tools, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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