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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses specific technical behaviors: it fires Cloudflare DoH DS and DNSKEY queries with DO=1, has an 8s timeout, and returns a CheckResult discriminated union with an explicit field list. This goes well beyond a basic summary.

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 purpose, then usage, then mechanics and return shape. Every clause contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, the underlying queries and timeout, and the return structure. No significant gaps remain that would hinder an agent's ability to invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already fully describes the domain parameter (including constraints on IPs, ports, paths, and protocol prefixes). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('DNSSEC chain-of-trust for a domain') and lists key components (DS, DNSKEY, AD flag). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by directing users to dossier_dns for raw record types and dossier_full for a complete audit.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('Use to confirm the zone is signed and resolvers accept the chain') and names two alternatives with their preferred use cases, giving clear guidance on tool selection.

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