check_agent_discovery

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior knee. Description adds substantial behavioral context: it reports on DNSSEC anchoring, DANE binding trust, and capability-document integrity, and notes the use of private-use SVCB parameter codes pending IANA assignment (a caveat about potential instability). These details meaningfully exceed the annotations, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the purpose and then list the key checks. Every sentence adds value: purpose, detection scope, and read-only note. It is not overly long, though it packs a lot of technical detail. Slightly above average due to efficiency and prioritization.

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 niche protocol tool, this description covers the essential aspects: what records it looks for, what security properties it evaluates (DNSSEC, DANE, capability integrity), and the current standardization status (pending IANA). Combined with a detailed schema and output schema, an agent has sufficient context to select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including format, protocol, domain, and verify_cap. The description adds some contextual nuance (e.g., 'reports whether the discovery zone is DNSSEC-anchored' ties protocol to the indexing) but largely complements the schema rather than adds new meaning. Baseline 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?

Description uses specific, concrete language: 'Assess the security posture of IETF BANDAID agent-discovery records (draft-mozleywilliams-dnsop-dnsaid).' It names the exact resource type (SVCB agent records), the naming convention (_agents/_index._{protocol}._agents), and distinguishes itself from the generic DNS-check siblings (check_dnssec, check_dane, etc.) by focusing on a specific draft spec. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the specific technical context but never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or when NOT to use it. It is clearly specialized for IETF BANDAID agent-discovery records, but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given. Given the niche focus, the intended use case is inferable, but explicit guidance would be stronger.

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