util_email_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'validate an email and its domain-level delivery records', but does not explain whether it sends emails, checks MX records, or has side effects. The lack of output schema further obscures 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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, given the lack of parameter documentation, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not structured to front-load critical information because critical information (parameter requirements) is missing entirely.

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 tool has no explicit parameter definitions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only vaguely describes the purpose without specifying input format, output, or additional behavioral details. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema defines a single 'arguments' object with additionalProperties true, providing no specific parameter details. The description does not mention what should be inside this object (e.g., email address, options). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on how to structure the input.

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 'validate' and the resource 'email and its domain-level delivery records', providing a specific purpose. It distinguishes from sibling utilities by focusing on email validation with delivery checks, such as util_dns_lookup or util_domain_trust_report.

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 mentions when to use the tool ('before outreach, signup, or routing'), giving contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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