email_check_dkim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses detailed behavioral aspects: parsing key type, estimating RSA key size, and flagging weak keys, testing mode, and revoked keys. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or network/rate-limit impacts, but the described checks imply non-mutating actions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant information or fluff.

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 description covers key behavioral outcomes (weak keys, testing mode, revoked keys) and the probing of selectors. However, without an output schema or annotations, it omits details about the exact return format and error handling, which would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about probing common selectors but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides for domain and selectors.

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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'DKIM records' for a domain, along with the method of probing common selectors. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling email_* tools by naming the specific record type and parsing activities.

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?

The description implies usage for DKIM checking but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_check_spf or email_check_dmarc. The context is clear from the name and description, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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