DNS records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: automatic stripping of protocol, 'www.', and paths; inclusion of CAA, SPF/DMARC presence checks, and misconfiguration warnings. These add transparency beyond a raw listing. However, it omits potential rate limits or failure behavior for invalid domains, keeping it from a 5.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core capability (record types) and adds supplementary features without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or tautology.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers record types, warnings, and input preprocessing. Missing details about return structure or error handling are minor gaps, but overall it provides the essential context for a callable tool.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) with 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by explaining the automatic stripping of protocol/www/paths, which is not obvious from the schema alone. This helps the agent format input correctly. A 4 reflects good additive context 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?

The description specifies the exact DNS record types resolved (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, CAA) and additional checks (SPF/DMARC, misconfiguration warnings). The verb 'resolves' is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like whois_lookup or ssl_certificate, which focus on different aspects of domain analysis.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for DNS resolution but offers no guidance on exclusions (e.g., if only a specific record type is needed) or comparison with siblings like subdomain_discovery or domain_reputation. A 3 reflects the lack of explicit when/when-not context.

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