check_dnskey_strength

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the tool reports algorithms independent of DNSSEC chain validation, and implies caching behavior via the force_refresh parameter. No contradictions with 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 concise, with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with 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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter hints. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. Given the tool's complexity, the description is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'Auto-detected if omitted' for format and 'Useful after DNS changes' for force_refresh, providing user guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 tool audits cryptographic strength of DNSKEY signing algorithms for DNSSEC. It specifies what it reports (algorithm types) and flags deprecated ones, distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_dnssec and check_dnssec_chain that focus on chain validation.

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 explicitly says 'Use when asked what algorithm is used for DNSSEC signing keys, or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use.' It also mentions being part of scan_domain audit, providing clear context for when to employ this tool. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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