check_authoritative_dns_infra

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the use of BV_INFRA_PROBE for raw DNS, routing, RPKI, and vantage-point evidence, providing context beyond safety 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 extremely concise with two sentences covering the action and the special probe. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and has no redundant phrasing.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential action and probe usage, though it could mention what 'posture' encompasses. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states 'Check authoritative DNS infrastructure posture for a hostname' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_dnssec or check_resolver_consistency. It also mentions the use of a specialized probe (BV_INFRA_PROBE).

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 for checking DNS infrastructure posture but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_dnssec or check_ns. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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