check_domain_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool triggers a fresh DNS lookup (network call, rate limit implications), but does not mention permissions, authentication specifics, or side effects beyond the lookup.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action ('check DNS health') and important detail ('triggers fresh DNS lookup') are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at return values. It lists record types checked, giving some idea of output, but does not specify whether results are pass/fail, scores, or raw records. For a health check tool, this is adequate but could be more 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (apiKey, domainId) sufficiently. The description does not add new meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb 'Check' and the resource 'DNS health of a specific domain', listing specific record types (DKIM, SPF, DMARC, MX). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_domain or get_deliverability_status by focusing on a fresh DNS lookup for health verification.

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 usage when current DNS health data is needed ('triggers a fresh DNS lookup'), but lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_deliverability_status or get_contact_health_score. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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