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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as network dependency, rate limits, error handling, or required permissions. The fact that it performs a network lookup is implied but not stated.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core function.

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 two parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format (e.g., record type, TTL, value), error cases (e.g., invalid domain, no records), or any additional context needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description lists the record types but does not explain their meanings or how they affect the lookup. For example, doesn't clarify that 'ANY' may return all types. The enum values are self-explanatory for DNS-savvy users, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs DNS lookup for a domain and lists supported record types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from related siblings like 'reverse_dns' or 'whois_lookup', though the specific record types provide implicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among many sibling tools.

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