check_dnssec_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the tool performs a full recursive walk from the root, examining DS/DNSKEY records and algorithms per zone, which explains the traversal cost and structure.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage condition follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose and usage well. It could add one detail about behavior on domains without DNSSEC (error vs. broken chain), but the definition is otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (walk/trace) and resource (DNSSEC chain of trust from root to target domain), and specifies the mechanism: tracing DS/DNSKEY records and algorithm usage at each zone level. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_dnssec (validation status) and check_dnskey_strength (key strength).

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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use: tracing the chain of trust from the root, or seeing the full DNSSEC delegation path step by step. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., check_dnssec) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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