domain_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the exact checks performed and the default DNS server behavior. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or output specifics, but the operation is inherently read-only and straightforward, and the output schema exists to handle return values.

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 compact: two sentences and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the primary purpose and organizes parameter details cleanly, with no redundant or filler content.

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 is moderately complex but has only two parameters and an output schema. The description covers the scope and default behavior. It might benefit from stating what the 'overall health assessment' entails, but that is partially addressed by listing the checks, so it is mostly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. It explains both parameters: 'domain' with an example format and 'dns_server' with its default value. This goes beyond the bare schema and provides the necessary semantic meaning.

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 a specific verb ('Run a comprehensive check') on a resource ('domain's email-related DNS configuration'), and explicitly lists what is checked (A, AAAA, NS, MX, SPF, DMARC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like spf_check or mx_check which perform individual checks.

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 term 'comprehensive check' implies this is the umbrella tool versus the individual sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the individual checks or provide exclusions, though the context of siblings and the broad scope make the intended usage clear enough.

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