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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description's main value is specifying that measurements are from a Korean network and that it compares across specific resolvers. It does not contradict annotations, and it adds useful context about the network vantage point, but does not detail response format or potential delays.

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 concise, front-loads the tool's purpose, and provides a concrete use case. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, the description covers its purpose, use case, and network context. It doesn't have an output schema, but the description mentions comparing answers, which implies a response format. Missing details like timeout behavior or error handling are minor, as annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'name' parameter is well-described with an example, but 'type' only has an enum without explicit examples. The description implies the 'name' is a record name and mentions TXT/CNAME for validation, adding some value. However, it doesn't clarify how 'type' interacts with the comparison or whether all types are supported equally.

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 it compares DNS answers across specific resolver groups and explicitly names the use case (confirming TXT/CNAME for certificate domain validation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_dns by focusing on propagation across multiple resolvers rather than a single lookup.

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?

It explains when to use it (confirm propagation for certificate validation) and implicitly distinguishes from check_dns (which likely checks DNS records generally). However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like check_certificate, leaving some guidance implicit.

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