audit_dns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it resolves both IPv4 and IPv6, and it frames the tool as an SSRF guard, which tells the agent the return signal is meant to gate subsequent HTTP calls.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, mechanism/record types, then positive and negative usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the verb+resource and contains no filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, safety framing, and exclusions. The only gap is that the SSRF-guard phrasing implies a return signal (e.g., resolved IPs vs. private ranges) without describing what the output contains, and there is no output schema to fill that 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 description coverage is 100% – the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the FQDN format and the explicit warning not to include protocols or URL paths. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 opens with a clear compound verb phrase – 'forward DNS resolution and network routing verification' – naming the resource (a target domain) and even the record types (IPv4/IPv6). It distinguishes itself from siblings implicitly (none do DNS) and explicitly excludes WHOIS and port scanning, though it never names actual 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?

The description states an explicit positive trigger ('before making HTTP requests', 'verify host reachability') and an explicit negative exclusion ('Do not use for WHOIS domain registration lookups or deep port scanning'). The SSRF-guard framing gives the agent a concrete when-to-use condition.

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