assess_spoofability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns risk level, sub-scores, and plain-language summary, and mentions the force_refresh parameter to bypass cache. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first defines the core function, second tells when to use. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action and output. Highly concise and structured.

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?

The description covers the return value (risk level, sub-scores, summary) despite no output schema. It also explains the force_refresh parameter's purpose. For a composite risk tool, this is sufficiently complete. Could mention caching behavior, but the parameter description covers it.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions domain, format, and force_refresh, but the schema already describes all parameters with adequate detail (e.g., 'Auto-detected if omitted'). The description adds no new semantic information 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 it computes a composite email spoofability risk score (0-100) combining SPF, DMARC, and DKIM. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_spf, check_dmarc, check_dkim which are individual checks, by emphasizing it's a composite score.

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 explicitly says 'Use when asked how easy it is to spoof email from a domain, or for a composite email spoofing risk score.' This provides clear context, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tools list implies the alternative individual checks.

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