check_fast_flux

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the behavioral process: performing multiple query rounds, comparing IP sets and TTLs across rounds to identify rotation. This goes beyond the annotations, providing actionable context without contradiction.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and method in the first sentence, then adds elaboration in the second. Every clause serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, how it works (multiple rounds, IP comparison, TTL analysis), and why (detect malicious infrastructure). An agent can confidently invoke this tool based on the description alone for the defined use case.

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 baseline is 3. The description ties parameters to the overall behavior (e.g., 'performs multiple rounds' relates to the rounds parameter, 'bypass cache' relates to force_refresh), but does not add significant meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions. No parameter descriptions are omitted.

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 detects fast-flux DNS behavior by performing multiple rounds of A/AAAA queries and checking IP rotation. It specifies the verb 'detect' and resource 'fast-flux DNS behavior', and explains the method. This distinguishes it from related DNS security tools like check_dnssec or check_ns.

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 states the tool is for detecting fast-flux DNS behavior, a sign of botnet or malicious infrastructure. While it doesn't list alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, the purpose is specific enough to guide appropriate use. The context signals suggest no direct sibling tool for fast-flux detection.

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