check_txt_hygiene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only profile. The description adds context about what the audit checks for (stale entries, SaaS exposure) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching behavior, rate limits, or data sources.

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 a single, 10-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 simple nature of this read-only audit tool, the combination of a concise description, comprehensive parameter schema, and full annotation coverage provides sufficient context. The description does not explain the exact criteria for 'stale' or 'SaaS exposure', but the output schema likely covers results.

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 100%, with each parameter having a descriptive explanation (domain, format, force_refresh). The description does not need to compensate for missing schema information, and the schema fully documents parameter semantics.

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 action ('Audit') and resource ('TXT records'), and specifies the focus ('stale entries and SaaS exposure'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like check_spf or check_zone_hygiene, which target other record types or broader zone hygiene.

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 implies the tool is for auditing TXT records but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage context to the user's inference.

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