aliasmail_check_disposable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Check' implies a non-mutating lookup, and the description adds real semantic context by defining both sides of the verdict (disposable provider vs. legitimate corporate infrastructure), but it says nothing about the response shape, confidence signals, or whether results are cached/rate-limited.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the decision it produces, with zero filler. Everything present earns its place.

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 input side is complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the check returns (boolean, verdict enum, score?) and it omits that entirely. For a lookup tool an agent must branch on, this is a meaningful gap.

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 single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including worked examples for both accepted forms (bare domain and full address). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies for a fully covered schema.

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 and resource ('Check whether an email address or domain...') plus the exact classification being made: disposable/burner versus legitimate corporate infrastructure. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling aliasmail_validate_email, which an agent could easily mistake for this check.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement — an agent can infer 'use before sending to avoid burner addresses' but nothing is stated about when to reach for this versus aliasmail_validate_email or aliasmail_check_dns. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternatives are named.

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