check_dbl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns decoded return codes, but does not elaborate on caching, network dependencies, or error scenarios; it meets the reduced bar but adds limited extra context.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes concrete block-list names; 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?

With a complete schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope and result format. It could mention cache behavior or default format, but these are covered by parameter descriptions.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('domain reputation against DNS-based Domain Block Lists'), and explicitly lists the lists (Spamhaus DBL, URIBL, SURBL), distinguishing it from sibling checks like check_rbl.

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 provides clear context for when this tool applies (domain reputation on DBLs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when to prefer check_rbl for IP-based lists.

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