check_txt_hygiene

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

Annotations confirm the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover safety. It does not add extra behavioral context such as caching behavior (partially covered by the force_refresh parameter schema) or what the audit reports. With annotations covering the core traits and an output schema presumably describing results, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and scope. No wasted words.

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 is concise but adequately conveys the tool's purpose for an agent to select it among TXT-related checks, especially given the rich sibling set. It could benefit from a brief note on what constitutes 'stale' or 'SaaS exposure' but is otherwise complete for a read-only audit with an output schema.

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 fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter details beyond what is already present, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('TXT records') with a clear scope ('stale entries and SaaS exposure'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling check_* tools that look at other DNS record types, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for overlapping goals.

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?

There is no guidance about when to run this versus adjacent tools like check_spf or check_dmarc, which also involve TXT records. No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned.

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