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 discloses the audit scope (five record types) and that it targets public domains, implying a read-only operation, but says nothing about output shape, behavior on unresolvable domains, or whether DNSSEC checks require special resolvers.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the audited records, followed by a compact Args block. No filler and no redundant restatement of the schema.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked but not what an agent gets back (per-record status, errors, verdicts). Given no output schema exists, some description of return content would have closed the gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the parameter must be a bare domain without scheme and gives `example.com` as an example. That is the key ambiguity for this parameter and it is resolved.

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?

States a specific verb (audita) and enumerates the exact record types examined (CAA, DNSSEC, SOA, CNAME, TTL) on a public domain, which lets an agent infer the scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like auditar_dominio or auditar_web, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied: a DNS record audit, distinct from web or mail audits. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over auditar_dominio (which plausibly overlaps), nor any precondition such as requiring the domain to be resolvable/public.

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