check_dnssec_chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds some context about what it traces (DS/DNSKEY records, algorithm usage) but does not disclose additional behaviors such as caching nuances, rate limits, or what happens if the chain breaks. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It states what the tool does and when to use it without any redundancy or filler. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic tool with three straightforward parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's scope and use case, and since an output schema exists, detailed return value explanations are unnecessary. It could be slightly more explicit about the output structure, but the description covers the essential context.

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%, with clear descriptions for domain, format (including enum), and force_refresh. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it only mentions 'tracing DS/DNSKEY records,' which is not parameter-specific. Given high schema coverage, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Walk the full DNSSEC chain of trust from the DNS root down to the target domain') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_dnssec by focusing on the complete chain tracing behavior. It explicitly mentions tracing DS/DNSKEY records and algorithm usage, making the 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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when asked to trace the chain of trust from the DNS root, or to see the full DNSSEC delegation path step by step.' However, it does not explicitly note when not to use it or contrast with simpler alternatives like check_dnssec, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between tools.

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