check_authoritative_dns_infra

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about using BV_INFRA_PROBE and the types of evidence collected, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. Each sentence provides specific, non-redundant information (what the tool does and how it works).

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It mentions the probe and key areas of investigation, leaving output details to the schema.

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 clear parameter descriptions (e.g., domain format, format auto-detection, force_refresh cache bypass). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but baseline is met.

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 action ('Check'), the resource ('authoritative DNS infrastructure posture for a hostname'), and specific aspects checked (raw DNS, routing, RPKI, vantage-point). This distinguishes it from sibling check tools like check_ns or check_dnssec which focus on individual aspects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies a comprehensive posture check, it lacks direct guidance on distinguishing it from the many other check tools in the sibling list.

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