verify_spf_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a non-destructive check but does not state what verification entails (e.g., DNS TXT lookup), what happens on failure, whether the domain must exist first, or any side effects. The bare statement leaves the agent without operational expectations.

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 five-word sentence is efficient and front-loaded with no filler, but it is under-specified given the context: 0% schema coverage, an unexplained zoid parameter, and no behavioral detail. It earns its place for purpose clarity but fails to carry necessary supplementary information.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the description is still incomplete for a tool with two required parameters and zero schema descriptions. It omits the meaning of zoid, any usage context, and operational behavior, leaving an agent unable to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies domain_name's role ('for domain') but leaves zoid completely unexplained — a required parameter with no hint of its meaning or purpose. The description only partially bridges the parameter gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Verify'), a precise resource ('SPF record'), and its scope ('for domain'). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_mx_record, verify_dkim_key, and verify_domain, which target different record types.

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 domain-related siblings (verify_domain, verify_mx_record, verify_dkim_key). The usage scenario is only implied by the tool name and the generic 'verify' phrasing; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing hints.

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