peerglass_dns_email_security

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations: it specifies exactly what gets probed (common DKIM selectors like google/selector1/default), what validations occur (SPF policy strength, DMARC pct coverage), and the risk scoring methodology (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL). It does not mention rate limits or timeout behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 excellently structured with bullet points for scannability, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence conveys specific information about functionality, parameters, or output format. No filler text is present.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 distinct protocol checks) and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description provides complete contextual coverage. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (audit with risk level/recommendations), and documents parameters adequately without needing to replicate the output schema structure.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates effectively via the 'Args' section, documenting both the domain parameter (with example) and response_format (with allowed values and default). It provides sufficient semantic meaning for an agent to construct valid inputs, though it omits validation constraints like maxLength that appear in the schema.

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 explicitly states it performs a 'Comprehensive email security posture check' and lists specific protocols audited (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MX, BIMI) along with risk scoring. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like peerglass_dns_resolve or peerglass_dns_dnssec which handle general resolution or DNSSEC rather than email authentication analysis.

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 detailed bullet points imply the tool is used for auditing email authentication configurations, there is no explicit guidance on when to select this over peerglass_dns_resolve for simple MX lookups, or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the specific capabilities listed but lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or alternative comparisons.

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