map_supply_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context on what correlations reveal (email, DNS control, integrated services). Could be more explicit about output format, but overall adds value beyond 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?

Two concise sentences: first states core action, second provides usage guidance and sibling reference. No superfluous 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?

Tool has three parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema. Description explains purpose, correlated records, and usage boundaries. Adequate for agent, though output structure could be hinted.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. Description does not add new semantics beyond schema, so baseline score is 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?

Description clearly states the tool maps DNS-visible third-party dependencies for a domain, specifying record types (SPF, NS, TXT, SRV, CAA). It distinguishes from sibling check_spf by stating use case for supply-chain mapping vs. email sender listing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (mapping third-party/supply-chain dependencies) and when not to use (listing who can send email), with direct alternative sibling check_spf.

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