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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that it uses BV_INFRA_PROBE when available and lists the evidence domains (raw DNS, routing, RPKI, vantage-point), providing useful context beyond annotations. Does not explain fallback behavior if probe unavailable, but still adds value.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second adds probe/evidence details. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Tool is moderately complex (multiple evidence types, probe dependency). Description covers core purpose and probe usage, and output schema handles return details. Missing explicit notes on when not to use or behavior when BV_INFRA_PROBE is unavailable, but with strong annotations and schema, this is adequate.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only hints at hostname scope.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' with resource 'authoritative DNS infrastructure posture', clarifying scope beyond individual DNS record checks. Mentions specific evidence types (routing, RPKI, vantage-point) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ns or check_dnssec.

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 for overall authoritative DNS infrastructure assessment but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like check_ns or check_dnssec. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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