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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (algorithm types, deprecated status) and what it does NOT do (check DNSSEC chain validation), which clarifies behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations.

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?

Four tightly written sentences front-load the core purpose, then detail what is reported, flag deprecated algorithms, and give usage examples. No wasted words. Achievement of conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given only one required parameter (domain), a detailed output schema (mentioned as existing), and full annotation coverage, the description is complete. It explains what is checked, what is reported, and what is not covered, leaving no significant gaps for an AI agent to fill.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that format is auto-detected if omitted and that force_refresh bypasses cache 'after DNS changes', providing context beyond schema defaults and enum descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('Audit', 'Reports', 'flags') and clearly identifies the resource ('cryptographic strength of DNSKEY signing algorithms used for DNSSEC'). It lists example algorithms and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_dnssec (which validates chains) by stating it reports algorithm strength independent of chain validation.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when asked what algorithm is used for DNSSEC signing keys, or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use') and implies alternatives by noting independence from DNSSEC chain checks (contrasting with check_dnssec sibling). The scope is clear: auditing algorithm strength, not validation.

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