Check DMARC Readiness

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: API token requirement, the meaning of a null next_record, the record_withheld/withheld_reason branch, verbatim relay of returned records, and required human approval before publication.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and the core behavior, and the operational guidance is genuinely load-bearing. It is slightly repetitive, restating the 'never compose a record' instruction for both the null and withheld cases, which could be consolidated.

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 explaining return values, and it does: readiness verdict, blockers, the evidence window, next_record (null while blocked), and record_withheld with withheld_reason. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single domain parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the verified-monitored-domain constraint and the not-found refusal. The description restates that scoping ('ONE domain the caller's account monitors') but adds no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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: read the DMARC enforcement-readiness verdict for ONE monitored domain, computed from its aggregate RUA report window. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_domain by explaining that a scan shows current policy while only this evidence window can say whether tightening would start rejecting mail.

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?

Explicit triggering condition ('when a signed-in operator asks whether a monitored domain is ready for the next DMARC step') and explicit sequencing ('use this before proposing enforcement'), plus a named alternative (scan_domain) with the reason to prefer this tool over it. Nothing is left to inference.

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