check_agent_discovery

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds behavioral details such as checking DNSSEC anchoring, DANE/TLSA binding trust, and capability-document integrity. It also notes the use of Private-Use SVCB param code points pending IANA assignment, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff 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?

Given the complexity of the tool, the description covers core checks and context (draft, read-only, pending IANA). With output schema and annotations present, it is mostly complete. It could mention handling of missing records or errors, but those are common and implied.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, the protocol parameter is well-described in the schema, and the tool description only reinforces that context.

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's purpose: 'Assess the security posture of IETF BANDAID agent-discovery records'. It uses specific verbs (assess, detect, report, evaluate, check) and names the resource (agent-discovery records under a specific draft). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on this niche protocol rather than generic DNS checks.

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?

While the description provides context (IETF BANDAID draft), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_dnssec or check_dane. Usage is implied but not directly guided, and no exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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