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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope ('public') and output nature ('status and records'), but does not disclose return format, potential errors, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and resource. No wasted words; the entire description is one sentence that earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description adequately captures the core purpose and parameter meaning. It doesn't detail response structure or edge cases, but the low complexity makes this acceptable. Could be improved by specifying what 'status' or 'records' contain.

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?

The schema provides only 'name' with minLength 1 and 0% description coverage. The description's reference to '.ton name' adds minimal semantic value, but lacks details like whether to include the '.ton' suffix or how to handle non-existent names.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lookup' combined with a clear resource 'public TON DNS status and records for a .ton name.' It distinguishes itself from sibling send_*_tx tools by emphasizing read-only public data.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only lookup for public DNS data. Although no alternatives are explicitly named, the sibling dns.send_*_tx tools are obviously transactional, making the usage intent evident. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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