email_full_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does (runs multiple checks, calculates a spoofability score, groups results by severity) and gives a clear sense of its read-only audit nature, though it does not explicitly state safety/side-effect details such as network usage or non-mutating behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value (scope, specific checks, output format). No wasted words or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (many checks) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (single report grouped by severity). It covers the key aspects, though it could add caveats like time/resource usage, but it remains highly complete for practical use.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, which already explains its purpose and format. The description merely repeats 'for a domain' without adding new semantic details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool runs a comprehensive email security audit for a domain, listing specific protocols checked (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.) and the output report. This specific verb+resource clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_check_spf or email_spoofability_score.

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 the tool is for a full, all-in-one audit versus individual checks, and mentions aggregation into a single report, which gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use individual email_check_* tools), so it stops short of a 5.

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