check_domain_email_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only status check and adds useful context about required authentication. However, it does not explain what happens if the domain does not exist, whether the check triggers any background work, or what specific DNS record states are surfaced. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, followed by a necessary access note. Both sentences earn their place, with no extraneous detail or repetition of schema information. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the access precondition. It mentions DNS record configuration progress, giving an agent a sense of what the status includes. It could be more complete by describing likely status values or return structure, but the overall context is sufficient for a straightforward status check.

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?

The input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter as 'Domain ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter, such as expected format or how to obtain the domain ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter semantics fully.

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 and resource: 'Check the email sending setup status for a domain, including DNS record configuration progress.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from related sibling tools like check_domain_verification, which focus on verification rather than email sending setup. The phrasing is concrete and actionable.

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 provides access prerequisites (needs a Proof account, API key or start_login) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_domain_verification or setup_domain_email. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and purpose.

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