check_dnssec_chain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint (false). The description adds context about the step-by-step tracing process and mentions cache behavior via force_refresh parameter. This is consistent and provides useful behavioral insight beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action (walk full DNSSEC chain), followed by usage hint. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (DNSSEC chain tracing), the description covers purpose, scope, and usage context. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Complete enough for agent selection.

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% for all 3 parameters. The description reinforces the domain purpose and adds context for force_refresh ('Useful after DNS changes'). Baseline is 3 due to high coverage; description adds marginal value.

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 walks the full DNSSEC chain of trust from the root, tracing DS/DNSKEY records and algorithm usage. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_dnssec (which only checks DNSSEC existence) and check_dnskey_strength (key strength focus) by specifying the full delegation path.

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 when to use: 'Use when asked to trace the chain of trust from the DNS root, or to see the full DNSSEC delegation path step by step.' It implies not for simple DNSSEC existence checks but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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