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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely valuable trait: the tool returns a full event stream and waits synchronously, so the agent learns the call blocks. It says nothing about auth requirements, timeouts, or what happens on partial failure.

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?

Two short clauses, with the purpose and then the blocking behavior front-loaded, and no wasted words. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, the mode split, and the synchronous event-stream return, which is the main thing an agent needs in order to call it. Gaps remain around prerequisites and failure semantics, but the schema covers most parameter nuance.

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 83%, so the input schema already documents domain, file_url, target_ca, record_type, and expected_token thoroughly, including enum implications. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the two modes, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("DCV 预检") and names the two validation modes (DNS TXT/CNAME, HTTP file), which clearly delimits what the tool checks. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as dcv.list_cas, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Naming the two modes implicitly tells the agent that it must pick a validation strategy, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (for example, whether the DNS record must already be published), and no explanation of how this differs from dcv.list_cas.

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