dns_eventsDays when several resolvers were unhealthy at once, as episodes: when each began, how long it ran, how many resolvers were affected at the peak, and which. This is the tool for "was there a DNS outage recently".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful detail about the episode-based aggregation, including temporal and impact fields. It does not mention time-range limits or ordering, but these are minor gaps for a zero-parameter read-only feed.
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?
Two sentences contain no filler. The first sentence front-loads the data model, and the second states the intended user question.
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 zero-parameter read-only feed, the description adequately explains the output structure and the intended use case. It could add explicit time-range or ordering details, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no input semantics to document. The baseline of 4 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 purpose: returning DNS outage episodes with start time, duration, peak affected resolver count, and affected resolvers. It also explicitly positions itself as the answer to 'was there a DNS outage recently', distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 gives a clear, concrete usage context: 'This is the tool for "was there a DNS outage recently".' It does not explicitly enumerate when to use alternatives, but the intended use is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.