check_subdomailing

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world check. The description adds useful context about what it inspects—the SPF include chain and dangling subdomains—but does not disclose caching behavior, rate limits, or other operational traits beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.

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 front-loaded and adequately short, but the second sentence largely restates the same idea as the first: checking whether an SPF include chain can be hijacked through a dangling domain. That redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 focused read-only check with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies enough purpose and usage context. It lacks explicit sibling-tool routing and operational detail, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the domain being the target of the SPF include analysis, making the baseline 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 names a specific verb and target: it detects SubdoMailing risk by analyzing the SPF include chain for dangling or hijackable subdomains. It clearly distinguishes this from general SPF or subdomain-takeover checks by focusing on the email-sending abuse path.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use it when you want to know if an SPF include chain can be hijacked through a dangling domain, or to detect mailing risk hidden in SPF includes. It does not, however, name specific alternative tools such as resolve_spf_chain or check_subdomain_takeover, so the routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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