verify_dkim_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Verify DKIM public key' and does not explain whether this is a safe read operation, whether it performs a DNS lookup, whether it requires the key to already exist, or what side effects or response behavior to expect.

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 extremely short and contains no fluff, which is efficient. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being a well-structured, informative definition. The single sentence earns its place but does not do enough work.

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?

Given three required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still lacks parameter meaning, usage context, and behavioral expectations.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the three required parameters. While 'domain_name' and 'dkim_id' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, 'zoid' is opaque and is not clarified anywhere. With zero schema descriptions, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 clear action and resource: 'Verify DKIM public key.' It is distinguishable from sibling verification tools like verify_domain, verify_mx_record, and verify_spf_record by the DKIM-specific resource. However, it provides no scope or detail about what 'verify' entails, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as add_dkim_details, set_default_dkim, regenerate_dkim_key, or verify_domain. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection criteria are mentioned, so the agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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