osint_email_headers

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

With no annotations, the description implies the tool performs read-only analysis of email headers, but it does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as read-only, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks explicit disclosure.

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 four sentences including a 'Menu ID' line that adds little value. It could be more concise by omitting the technical menu reference and focusing on core functionality.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format or what to expect. It offloads completeness to describe_tool, indicating the description alone is insufficient for full agent understanding.

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 0% for the single 'headers' parameter. The description does not explain the expected format or content of the input string, leaving the agent to infer from the tool purpose. More detail on input requirements would be helpful.

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 identifies the tool as an email header analyzer, listing specific features like SPF, DKIM, DMARC parsing and delivery path tracing. It distinguishes itself from sibling OSINT tools by focusing solely on email headers.

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 does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives. It mentions referring to describe_tool for full guidance, implying additional context exists, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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