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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: statelessness, comparison of current vs. proposed state, deterministic rule-based findings, and the risk score. It does not explicitly say it never applies changes, but 'Review ... BEFORE applying' and 'Stateless' strongly imply a read-only, non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then efficiently lists outputs and the key statelessness trait. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (diff, findings, fixes, risk score) and its non-persistent behavior. The schema covers parameters thoroughly. It could mention pagination or formatting of the diff, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters, including the critical nuance that 'records' is the complete desired state and omissions are deletions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, 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 states a specific verb ('Review') and a specific resource ('proposed DNS changes'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like dns_lookup or dns_health by focusing on pre-application review with diff, findings, and risk score. This is a unique, well-scoped purpose.

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 phrase 'BEFORE applying them' gives clear timing context for when to use the tool, and the description implies the review workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among DNS-related siblings.

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