check_dnskey_strength

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it reports algorithm usage and flags deprecated algorithms independent of chain validation. It implies caching via the force_refresh parameter, which is helpful. 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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second adds detail, third gives usage guidance. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key action and scope.

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 annotations, schema, and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context. It could mention output format or examples, but is complete enough for an agent to select and use 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 the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds some context (e.g., algorithm reporting) but does not deepen parameter understanding. 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 clearly states it audits cryptographic strength of DNSKEY algorithms, lists examples, and distinguishes from DNSSEC chain validation. It uses specific verbs ('Audit', 'Reports', 'flags') and resources ('DNSKEY signing algorithms'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use when asked what algorithm is used for DNSSEC signing keys, or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use.' This provides explicit usage context. It could improve by explicitly excluding cases like DNSSEC chain validation, but it's clear enough.

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