check_agent_discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it uses Private-Use SVCB param code points pending IANA assignment, and details the checks (SVCB, DNSSEC, DANE, capability integrity). No contradictions; adds 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 a single concise paragraph that front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value: specifies the standard, list of checks, and read-only nature. No wasted words.

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, with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It sets expectations for what the tool reports (detects, reports, evaluates). Could be slightly more detailed on output, but the output schema presumably covers that. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond the schema; it mentions 'resolve a single named agent' for the 'name' parameter and 'sweep the zone' for the 'protocol' parameter, but does not elaborate on format, verify_cap, or force_refresh. Adequate but not exceptional.

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: assessing the security posture of IETF BANDAID agent-discovery records. It specifies what it detects (SVCB records, DNSSEC anchoring, DANE/TLSA binding, capability documentation integrity). Differentiates from sibling tools like check_dane and check_dnssec by focusing on the agent-discovery protocol.

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 explicitly states the tool is read-only, implying safe usage. It provides context for when to use it (to check agent discovery security) but does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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