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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context beyond the annotations: the unsigned-zone spoofability implication, the DNSSEC-anchoring check, and the caveat that Private-Use SVCB param code points are used pending IANA assignment.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then lists the specific checks in a single dense but well-structured block. It is information-rich rather than padded, though the prose is heavily packed and slightly long for a definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with 100% schema coverage, the description is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could more explicitly address caching/pagination behavior of the zone sweep.

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 all six parameters thoroughly. The description ties cap/cap-sha256 to the capability-integrity check and protocol to the index pattern, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is 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 (Assess/Detects/reports/evaluates/checks) combined with a precise, unusual resource (IETF BANDAID agent-discovery SVCB records). The subject matter is so specialized that it is inherently distinguishable from DNS/TLS siblings like check_svcb_https or check_srv.

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 its use case (security posture of agent-discovery records) but never states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit routing to or from sibling tools, leaving usage to inference.

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