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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses Cloudflare DoH, indicating an external network dependence. It also implies it resolves multiple record types in one call. It does not describe output format or limitations, but for a read-only lookup, the behavior is transparent enough.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function, lists specific record types, and includes the implementation detail (Cloudflare DoH). Every word earns its place, with no 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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does, for whom, and how. It does not detail return values, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward purpose. Slightly less complete than a tool with richer annotations.

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 already provides 100% documentation for the single 'domain' parameter with an example. The description reinforces that this domain is used for DNS resolution but does not add detail beyond the schema. As schema coverage is high, 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('DNS records'), enumerating the exact record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like full_report or phishing_check, which serve different purposes.

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 description establishes clear context: use this tool when needing DNS records for a domain. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the context is unambiguous given sibling tools are unrelated. A slight deduction for not stating when to avoid using it, but the guidance is clear for an agent.

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