get_readiness

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: the null next_record is a valid answer, the agent must relay blockers and never compose a stronger record, and any returned record must be presented verbatim for human approval. It also mentions API token requirements and return semantics.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, then delivers return semantics, safety guardrails, and usage guidance. Every sentence carries essential information—none are filler—and the structure logically progresses from what it does to how to handle its outputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (readiness, blockers, window, next_record) and the null semantics, which is crucial for correct agent behavior. It also covers the human-approval requirement and the tool's role in the enforcement workflow, making it complete for a tool of this 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 input schema already covers the domain parameter well (verified, monitored, ownership not disclosed). The description adds meaning by emphasizing that the domain is specifically the one whose RUA report window the verdict is computed from, and that it must be a single domain from the caller's account, reinforcing the scope.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Read the DMARC enforcement-readiness verdict for ONE domain the caller's account monitors.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_domain by framing it as the evidence-based readiness check.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this before proposing enforcement.' It also contrasts with scan_domain, noting that a scan shows current policy but only this evidence window can determine if tightening would reject real mail, providing effective guidance on alternatives.

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