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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating it validates DNSKEY and DS records, reports enablement and validation status, and mentions it checks against cache poisoning and DNS spoofing—behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. The description is consistent with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then provides behavioral details, and ends with contextual note about being part of scan_domain. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool checks, how it validates, and its role in a broader audit.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the domain parameter in context of DNSSEC check, but the schema already describes parameters well. The description doesn't add new parameter info.

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 tool checks DNSSEC status for a domain, with specific verbs like 'verifies', 'validates', and 'reports'. It distinguishes itself from many DNS-related sibling tools (e.g., check_dnssec_chain, check_nsec_walkability) by focusing on high-level DNSSEC validity and tamper-proof status.

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 gives clear context that this is part of the scan_domain audit, which implies use in a security audit workflow. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling list provides strong differentiation cues. No specific usage exclusions are mentioned.

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