netintel_email_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds one genuine behavioral detail — the sections 'run concurrently' — and flags the password check as optional, but says nothing about auth/permission needs, rate limits, cost, or the privacy implications of submitting a password to a breach service, which is a material concern for this kind of tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the three capabilities and the concurrency detail with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing ellipsis suggests the provided text is truncated.

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 composite tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description covers the 'what' well but leaves the agent without output structure, section keys, failure modes, or password-handling caveats. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the password input drives the 'optional password breach check', implying it is not required, but it says nothing about the email parameter's format (single address vs. list) or validation rules.

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 names a concrete verb and resource — combining SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication, email-address intelligence, and a breach check into a single 'email-trust report'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the constituent siblings (netintel_email_auth, netintel_email_intel, netintel_breach_check) by presenting itself as the aggregate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'One call combines...' implies the tool is for when you want all three checks at once rather than calling them individually, which is useful routing context. However, it never states when to prefer this aggregate over the three separate tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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