detect_domain_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It includes the HTTP GET method, which signals a read-only operation, and states what the tool returns. It does not mention error cases, prerequisites, or permission requirements, but the read-only nature is reasonably conveyed.

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 sentence that gives the purpose, the output type, and the exact endpoint with no filler or repetition. Every element earns its place.

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-only detection tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what will be returned: DNS provider and available one-click apply methods. It could mention prerequisites like domain ownership or verification, but those may be shared across domain tools and are not critical for the primary call.

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 only parameter, id, is already fully described in the input schema as 'The domain id.' The description adds no additional parameter detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the action ('Detect'), the resource ('a domain's DNS provider'), and the additional output ('one-click apply methods available'). It also includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the apply_domain_dns_* siblings.

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 implies the tool is used before selecting a one-click DNS apply method, as it detects the provider and available apply methods. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like check_domain_mx or state when not to use this tool, so the context is clear but not fully explicit.

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