dns_intelligence__lookup_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the query is live against authoritative/public resolvers, whether it follows CNAMEs, what the response shape is, or any rate/recursion limits — for a zero-annotation tool that is a significant gap.

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 with no filler and no repetition of the name. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with no annotations and no output 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?

The tool is simple (2 required params, no nesting), but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least sketch what a lookup returns (record values, TTL, resolver used) and how failures/NXDOMAIN appear. That is missing, leaving the agent to discover it empirically.

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% and the type enum is self-documenting, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that a domain and record type are supplied, adding no format, normalization, or IDN handling detail 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 gives a specific verb (lookup) and resource (DNS records) plus scope (targeted, specific record types on a domain), which implicitly contrasts with the broader enumerate_dns sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating what 'targeted' excludes, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Targeted ... for specific record types' hints that this is the tool to use when you already know which record type you want, implying enumerate_dns covers the broader case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so the agent must infer the routing.

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