aliasmail_validate_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully names the four verification layers performed, which is real behavioral content beyond the name. However, it says nothing about what happens on a failed validation (exception vs. a negative result), whether this performs live network/DNS lookups with associated latency or rate limits, or what the response contains — all material for a tool that returns no schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the enumerated checks second — no filler, no repetition. The inline URL is arguably extra, and a short second sentence on usage would earn its place more than the link does.

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 one-parameter tool this is close to sufficient, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates the shape of the result — the agent cannot know whether it receives a boolean, a per-check breakdown, a score, or a normalized address. Given it advertises four distinct checks, that return-shape gap matters.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('The email address to validate'), so the schema already does the work and the baseline would be 3. The description adds modest value by implying the input is the address under test and that normalization/typo reasoning happens server-side, but it offers no guidance on accepted formats or edge cases.

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 ('Deep email address validation') and enumerates the checks performed: RFC 5322 syntax, MX resolution, typo detection, disposable flagging. That makes the scope concrete, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings that overlap heavily (aliasmail_check_disposable, aliasmail_check_dns), so an agent can't tell from this text alone which tool to pick for a single-purpose 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 — an agent can infer this is a pre-send or signup-form validation step. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no mention of the obvious alternatives (aliasmail_check_disposable, aliasmail_check_dns), even though this tool subsumes part of their function.

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