reach_getProfileDomainDNSStatusV1

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it reports actual and suggested records, implying read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or idempotency.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second provides details. No extraneous information, well-structured for quick agent comprehension.

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?

Covers key aspects: what it retrieves, which record types, and the distinction between actual and suggested records. Lacks description of return format, but for a simple retrieval tool without output schema, this is fairly complete.

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 description adds meaningful context to the single parameter 'profileUuid' by linking it to 'profile's domain', enhancing understanding beyond the schema's generic description. Schema coverage is 100%, but the extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves DNS configuration status for a profile's domain, listing specific record types (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC). This distinguishes it from sibling DNS management tools that handle general DNS records.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DNS_getDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_validateDNSRecordsV1. The usage context is implied (email delivery check), but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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