dns_wildcard_check

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

The description mentions the key behavior of resolving a random subdomain but does not explain what constitutes a wildcard detection, error handling (e.g., domain not found), or whether the tool is read-only. Since no annotations exist, more detailed behavioral disclosure is needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's core action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about return format (e.g., true/false) and potential false positives or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 already describes the 'domain' parameter fully (100% coverage), so the description adds only slight context about the method (random subdomain). The baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 clearly states the tool checks for wildcard DNS on a domain by resolving a random subdomain. This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_reverse.

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 implies usage when checking for wildcard DNS but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as dns_lookup. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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