check_tlsrpt

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific behavioral details: the DNS query, validation of rua= and https: destinations, flagging missing/duplicate/invalid records. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences that are information-dense with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then method, then context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, DNS query, validation logic, and its role in the audit. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. This is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context about the domain used in the DNS query but doesn't elaborate on format or force_refresh, which are already well-documented in the schema. Meets the baseline for high 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 checks for SMTP TLS Reporting (TLS-RPT) configuration, queries the specific DNS record, and validates the reporting destination. It distinguishes itself from sibling DNS-check tools by focusing on a specific record type and mentions its complementary role to MTA-STS.

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 gives clear context: it complements MTA-STS and is part of the scan_domain audit, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the implication is strong enough for a 4.

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