check_tlsrpt

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it queries _smtp._tls.<domain> for TLS-RPT records, validates reporting URIs, and flags issues. Annotations already confirm readOnly and idempotent, so no contradiction. The description effectively explains what the tool does without conflicting with structured data.

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 three sentences, starting with the main purpose, then detailing the query and validation, and finally providing context. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 DNS check tool, the description covers the query, validation criteria, and its role in an audit. Output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. It is complete given the tool's complexity.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. It focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 checks for SMTP TLS Reporting configuration by querying a specific DNS record and validating the reporting URI. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_mta_sts by explaining it complements MTA-STS for visibility into TLS delivery failures.

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 mentions it complements MTA-STS, indicating when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools. The context is clear enough for an agent to understand its role in an audit.

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