dns_email_security

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

The description discloses that it checks common DKIM selectors and provides risk assessment, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but is not fully comprehensive.

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 front-loaded sentences: first captures main purpose, second adds specific detail. No extraneous text, every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's outputs (SPF, DMARC, DKIM analysis, risk assessment, recommendations). It could be more explicit about the structure of the return, but overall is sufficient for its complexity.

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?

The schema already describes domain and dkim_selectors. The description adds value by listing example common selectors (google, selector1, selector2, k1), enhancing understanding beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes email security posture (SPF, DMARC, DKIM) with risk assessment and recommendations. It also mentions checking common DKIM selectors, differentiating it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_spf_chain that only return raw records.

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?

While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide when-not or alternate tool suggestions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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