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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the tool performs a multi-hop iterative walk and 'shows each delegation step', hinting at the response shape, but omits latency/round-trip cost, resolver behavior, and failure semantics on broken delegations.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and mechanism with no redundant or filler wording.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating that each delegation step is shown, giving the agent a sense of the response. The fully documented schema handles parameters, leaving only usage-selection guidance as a gap.

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%, with all three parameters (name, type, family) documented including enum values and defaults in the schema itself. The prose description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Follows') with a precise mechanism: walking the name from root servers through the TLD to authoritative nameservers, and explicitly analogizes to 'dig +trace'. That mechanism inherently separates it from simple resolution siblings like dns_lookup, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement is given; the use case (diagnosing delegation problems) is only implied by the described mechanism. An agent must infer that this is the heavier, diagnostic option versus a plain lookup.

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