justhandled_email_dns_auth_evidence_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the cost ($0.05 USDC on Base mainnet) and the nature of the check (looking for missing/conflicting/invalid/monitor-only policies), but does not provide details on side effects, permissions, or return behavior.

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 sentence that leads with the action verb and packs specific detail into a compact format. No redundant information 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?

The tool has a nested object schema and no output schema, yet the description does not cover return values, error conditions, or interpretation of results. It also omits guidance on what constitutes 'monitor-only' or 'normalized', leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 does not explain the domain, observed_at, or records parameters beyond naming the record types. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not provide format, meaning, or constraints for the parameters.

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 'Check' and identifies the exact resource ('normalized SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and MX evidence') and the specific issues being checked (missing, conflicting, invalid, or monitor-only). This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools, which are mostly unrelated domains.

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 for analyzing email DNS authentication evidence but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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