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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those annotations by specifying Google/Cloudflare DoH as sources, a per-call price, and the GET endpoint, which helps an agent understand network behavior and cost.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds source, cost, and endpoint information without wasted words. Every clause contributes useful operational context.

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 low complexity, 100% schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the response format or supported record types, but the core invocation context—purpose, source, endpoint, and key params—is sufficiently covered.

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 fully documents both 'name' and 'type'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve DNS records') and the mechanism ('via DNS-over-HTTPS'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also names the data sources, which distinguishes it from the broader set of lookup-style sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: whenever DNS records need to be resolved. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though no close DNS-specific sibling exists in the provided list.

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