check_domain_email_status

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds useful context beyond the annotation: it requires a Proof account and either PROOF_API_KEY or a session opened via start_login. However, with no output schema it does not describe what the returned status looks like (e.g., verification states or DNS record fields), leaving the read's result shape undisclosed.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second handles the access prerequisite. No wasted text, though the ACCESS clause is somewhat verbose for what it conveys.

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 single-parameter read-only tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description supplies purpose and the non-obvious auth prerequisite. Only the return-value shape is omitted, which is a minor gap given the tool is a status read.

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 a single parameter ('id' documented as 'Domain ID'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (email sending setup status for a domain), plus the scope of what it inspects (DNS record configuration progress). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like check_domain_verification, setup_domain_email, or get_add_email_status, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 never says when to call this versus setup_domain_email, start_domain_email_verification, confirm_domain_email_code, or check_domain_verification, nor what prerequisite state should precede it. Only the auth prerequisite (PROOF_API_KEY or start_login) is stated, which is access guidance rather than when-to-use guidance.

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