get_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the API-token requirement, the null-as-answer semantics of next_record with an explicit prohibition on fabricating a stronger record, and the rule to present records verbatim pending human approval. Nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Seven sentences, each carrying distinct load: trigger, purpose, auth requirement, return payload, null semantics, verbatim-output policy, and sibling contrast. Dense and front-loaded; the all-caps null warning is emphatic but earns its place given the real-mail-rejection stakes.

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 carries the full burden of characterizing the return payload (readiness verdict, blockers, evidence window, next_record with its null semantics) and discharges it completely. Auth, error behavior via the schema, when-to-use, and the human-approval workflow are all covered; nothing essential is missing for a one-parameter read.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly, including ownership verification and the 'refused as not found; ownership is never disclosed' behavior. The description reinforces the single-domain scope but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the high-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading the DMARC enforcement-readiness verdict for ONE monitored domain, computed from its aggregate RUA report window. This scope precisely distinguishes it from siblings like scan_domain (current policy, not readiness) and validate_dmarc_record.

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?

Opens with the exact trigger condition ('signed-in operator asks whether a monitored domain is ready for the next DMARC step') and closes by naming the alternative: 'a scan can show a domain's current policy, but only this evidence window can say whether tightening it would start rejecting real mail.' When-to-use and the deciding contrast against scan_domain are both explicit.

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