check_authoritative_dns_infra

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: authenticated callers get zone-transfer refusal and CHAOS version.bind tests, the ZT test is 'first response only, no zone data retrieved,' and it uses BV_INFRA_PROBE when available. This discloses auth gating and side-effect boundaries the annotations do not.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a single very long, em-dash-dense sentence followed by a lengthy enumeration of non-measured signals. The scope-negation list is useful for routing yet verbose; some items could be trimmed without loss. Appropriately sized in intent but structurally heavy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies full scope, auth-dependent behavior, probe fallback, and a clear boundary of what is not measured — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% with all three parameters documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (e.g., it does not explain the full/compact format semantics or when force_refresh is worthwhile), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (measure), resource (authoritative DNS infrastructure posture), scope (for a hostname, over direct DNS-over-TCP/53 from a single vantage), and enumerates the exact signals it covers. The explicit list of what it measures versus what it does not (UDP/53, amplification, BGP, RPKI, etc.) lets an agent separate it from siblings like check_ns and check_dnssec without opening a schema.

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 scope delineation implies when the tool is appropriate (authoritative-side posture, TCP/53-based checks), and the 'inconclusive' list helps rule it out for other needs. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit condition for choosing this over check_ns, check_dnssec, or check_zone_hygiene. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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