Get profile domain DNS status

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: it discloses which record types are inspected (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC) and clarifies that both actual and suggested records are returned. This gives the agent a clearer picture of what the operation will do and report.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the core action and target, the second adds valuable detail about the returned record states. There is no repetition of the title or fluff, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only endpoint, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what records are checked and what the response will contain (actual and suggested records). It stops short of describing exact response fields or mentioning how to obtain the profileUuid, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature make this a minor gap.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents profileUuid as 'Profile uuid parameter'. The description adds mild context by tying the UUID to a profile's domain, but it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the exact resource ('DNS configuration status for a profile's domain'). It also names the record types covered (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings, but the tool name and description make its unique role evident.

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 implies the tool is used when someone needs to inspect a profile domain's DNS records for email delivery, especially the actual vs suggested records. However, it does not state when to prefer this over related tools like DNS_getDNSRecordsV1 or reach_getConnectedSendingDomainV1, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as domain verification.

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