dns_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the resolver being local and the diagnostic limitation, but says nothing about timeout/error behavior on NXDOMAIN, which record types are queried, or whether results reflect caching.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a scoping caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 tool the description covers purpose and one limitation, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves unaddressed what a successful or failed lookup returns and how errors surface. Adequate, not complete.

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?

Single required 'name' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Resolve A/AAAA/CNAME' implies 'name' is a domain name, but the description never states the expected format (hostname, FQDN, trailing dot) or whether it can be a URL.

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?

States a specific verb (Resolve) with concrete record types (A/AAAA/CNAME) and scopes it to the local system resolver. The 'local system resolver' phrasing implicitly differentiates it from the cloudflare_records/cloudflare_zones siblings without naming them.

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 second sentence ('Does not prove global propagation or HTTPS health') sets scope boundaries, which is useful, but it never states when to prefer this tool over cloudflare_records or another DNS sibling. Usage is only implied.

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