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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only names the resource and record types. It does not disclose that the tool performs DNS-over-HTTPS resolution, whether q is a domain, what the output looks like, or any rate limits or error behavior. The 'DoH' acronym hints at the protocol, but nearly all operational behavior is left undisclosed.

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 short and front-loaded with no filler, and the parenthetical list compactly communicates the tool's scope. However, it is a fragment rather than a sentence, and the extreme terseness omits the parameter and usage context. It is concise but under-specified.

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?

Even though there is an output schema and only one optional parameter, the tool sits among many DNS-related siblings such as dns, dnsquery, dnsrecon, tlsa, and srvlookup. The description gives no q semantics, examples, or decision rule, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct invocation or distinguish this tool from srvlookup/tlsa.

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 0% and the description never mentions the only parameter, q. An agent cannot tell whether q should be a domain name, a record type, an IP address, or free-text search. With a single undocumented parameter, describing q was essential for the tool to be callable, and the description completely fails to do so.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'DoH Records', and enumerates the record types covered (HTTPS/SVCB/TLSA/SRV/NAPTR), making the tool's domain obvious. It lacks an explicit verb like 'resolve' or 'look up', but the record-type list communicates the operation clearly and distinguishes it from generic DNS tools such as 'dns' or 'dnsquery'.

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 word 'Uncommon' and the explicit record list imply this tool is for less standard DNS record types, giving some selection context among the many sibling DNS tools. However, it never states when not to use it, what alternative to prefer for standard records, or what q should contain. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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