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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is detected (plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, opt-out flags), giving the agent behavioral insight into the analysis scope without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that immediately state the purpose and specific detections. Every phrase ('Assess zone walkability risk,' 'analyzing NSEC3PARAM configuration,' 'Detects plain NSEC zones...') adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the tool having 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough for the given complexity. It covers the tool's purpose, key analytical capabilities, and the output schema (though not explicitly described) likely structures the detection results. The high annotation coverage and schema richness mean the description needn't elaborate further.

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 three parameters with descriptions including domain constraints (min/maxLength), format enum, and force_refresh semantics. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 assesses 'zone walkability risk' by analyzing 'NSEC3PARAM configuration,' with specific detections for 'plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags.' This distinct purpose and resource distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_dnssec' and 'check_dnssec_chain,' which focus on broader DNSSEC validation and chain verification, respectively.

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 use when evaluating DNSSEC security of a zone, particularly regarding NSEC/NSEC3 weaknesses. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_dnssec' or 'check_zone_hygiene,' but the specialized focus on NSEC3PARAM makes the context clear. No explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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