audit_domain_email_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the checks performed and that a 0-100 spoofing risk score is produced, which implies a read-only DNS audit, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, per-domain vs bulk cost, or failure behavior for unqueryable domains.

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 dense sentence with the action front-loaded and the output metric placed at the end. Every clause (the record types, the scoring range) carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the load, and it does disclose the headline return value (0-100 spoofing risk). It stops short of describing the full result shape (per-record findings, pass/fail detail) or how multiple domains are handled, leaving a small gap for a one-parameter audit tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'domains'. The description adds no syntax, batching, or format guidance beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (audit) plus the exact resource and enumerates every record family inspected (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, BIMI, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, MX) and the deliverable (spoofing risk score 0-100). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like score_email_deliverability_risk or monitor_ssl_tls_certificates, which cover different surfaces.

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 enumerated check list implies when the tool is relevant (you want a domain's email authentication/spoofing posture), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative versus score_email_deliverability_risk. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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