verify_mx_record

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. 'Verify' implies a read-only check, but the description does not state what verification entails (DNS lookup vs. configuration match), whether anything is modified, or what happens when the domain is not yet registered in the system. For an unannotated tool, this is a substantial gap.

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 six-word sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource; there is no wasted text. It is concise, though terse to the point of under-specification given the missing parameter context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool sits among many verifiers in a large domain-management family. Missing context includes the meaning of zoid, prerequisites (e.g., prior add_domain), and how this differs from verify_domain and verify_spf_record. This is below minimum viable for an unannotated tool with 0% parameter documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does for domain_name by indicating the domain whose MX record is checked, but zoid is entirely opaque — there is no hint of what a 'zoid' is or the expected format of either parameter.

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 (Verify) and resource (MX record for domain), making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling verification tools such as verify_domain, verify_spf_record, and verify_dkim_key — the differentiation rests entirely on the reader knowing what an MX record is.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling verification tools (verify_domain, verify_spf_record, verify_dkim_key). There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the domain must first be added via add_domain. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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