sendcraft_analyze_dmarc

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose return values (score, policy strength, issues to fix), but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The word 'Analyze' implies read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise sentence (18 words) that front-loads the action and includes the key output summary. There is zero wasted 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is sufficient: it explains the purpose, the prerequisite, and the return values (score 0-100, policy strength, issues) in enough detail for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already has full coverage for domain_id, describing it as 'Domain ID from list_domains'. The description adds the constraint 'for a verified domain,' which gives extra semantic context beyond the schema, reinforcing which domain_ids are valid.

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 ('Analyze') and resource ('DMARC record for a verified domain'), clearly distinguishing this tool from the many sibling tools focused on sending, campaigns, and subscribers. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 phrase 'for a verified domain' provides a clear prerequisite: the domain must already be verified. This gives context on when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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