check_dbl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns listing status with decoded return codes but does not disclose caching behavior or rate limits, despite the force_refresh parameter hinting at caching.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and specific details. No wasted words; efficiently conveys purpose and output.

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 output schema present and rich annotations, the description covers core functionality adequately. Could mention reliance on specific block lists and potential latency, but overall complete for a simple tool.

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. Description adds overall context (DNSBL checking and return format) but does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool checks domain reputation against DNS-based block lists (Spamhaus DBL, URIBL, SURBL) and returns decoded return codes. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_rbl or check_mx_reputation.

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?

Description implies usage for DNSBL checks but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_rbl or check_mx_reputation. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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