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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool performs an audit and returns scores, but it doesn't explicitly state that it makes no changes or mention any potential latency or rate limits. The audit nature implies read-only, but the disclosure is not explicit.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists all key categories and the output format. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, the scope of checks, and the output (overall score plus per-category). It is complete for an audit tool of this complexity.

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% coverage for the domain parameter with a clear example. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond using the word 'domain' in the first sentence, 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('DNS health audit') and details 39 checks across 7 categories, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_record. It also specifies the output (severity-weighted score) which further clarifies its 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 description clearly establishes that this is a comprehensive audit tool, appropriate for a full DNS health assessment rather than a simple lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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