check_authoritative_dns_infra

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by revealing the underlying BV_INFRA_PROBE dependency and the evidence categories (raw DNS, routing, RPKI, vantage-point), which helps the agent understand the tool's data acquisition behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences. The first states the purpose, the second names the key data-source detail. No filler, no redundancy, all content earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, scope (authoritative DNS infrastructure), and evidence source. It is slightly less complete than ideal because it omits what the 'posture' result means or how it relates to the many sibling DNS tools, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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%, and each parameter (domain, format, force_refresh) has a helpful description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries that burden sufficiently, so baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Check authoritative DNS infrastructure posture for a hostname.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that check individual DNS records (MX, SPF, NS, etc.), though it does not explicitly name the distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The sibling list contains numerous focused DNS checks (check_ns, check_dnssec, check_dnssec_chain), and the description could have indicated this is the comprehensive posture check while those are for specific record types, but it does not.

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