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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reports algorithm details and deprecated-flag results independently of whether the DNSSEC chain validates, which tells the agent the result is not gated on chain success.

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?

Three tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then scope and usage. Slight redundancy between the opening audit statement and the later 'Use when asked what algorithm is used' clause keeps it from a 5.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, when-to-use, algorithm coverage, and its place in the scan_domain audit, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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% and all three parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description says nothing extra about domain, format, or force_refresh behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource: audits the cryptographic strength of DNSKEY signing algorithms for DNSSEC, and names the specific algorithms it reports and flags. This is clearly differentiated from siblings such as check_dnssec or check_dnssec_chain, which cover chain validation rather than algorithm strength.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('what algorithm is used for DNSSEC signing keys', 'deprecated DNSKEY algorithms in use') and notes it is part of the scan_domain audit. It lacks explicit when-not or a direct sibling comparison (e.g., vs check_dnssec), so it stops short of a 5.

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