DNSBL Blacklist Check

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the output (listed/clean status, number of hits, per-zone details) and credit cost. Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which aligns with a read-heavy check. No contradictions; however, it could disclose that results vary over time (openWorldHint is true but not explained).

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 concise, well-structured with Args/Returns/Examples/Credit cost sections, and uses minimal sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return format, and cost. It is complete for typical usage, though it could mention that results are based on current DNSBL statuses and may change.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, including a clear description. The description adds an example but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it checks a domain's IP against 50 DNSBL zones across 6 categories, using a specific verb and resource. The tool name and title are reinforced, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deliveriq_domain_intel by focusing solely on blacklist status.

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 provides clear context and an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. For instance, it could contrast with deliveriq_infrastructure_check for broader IP reputation checks. However, the purpose is evident, and the example helps guide usage.

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