smartlead_get_dkim_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks DKIM authentication status, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it lacks details on safety, performance, or output format.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check if DKIM authentication passed or failed for each sender mailbox and receiver account.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (simple, single-parameter read operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or return values. For a tool with no structured support, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold without being misleading.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'spam_test_id' clearly documented as 'ID of the spam test to get the DKIM details for.' The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without extra value from the description.

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's purpose: 'Check if DKIM authentication passed or failed for each sender mailbox and receiver account.' It specifies the action ('check') and the resource (DKIM authentication status), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smartlead_get_spf_details' or 'smartlead_get_spam_filter_details', which might handle related authentication or spam details, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a spam_test_id from another tool), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'smartlead_get_spam_test_details' or 'smartlead_get_email_headers', which might offer overlapping or complementary information. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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