check_resolver_consistency

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond '4 public resolvers'. It does not disclose behavior on inconsistency, caching, or resolver selection. Meets basic expectations but adds little value 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action in minimal space.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on output format, consistency criteria, or resolver identities. This gap leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's behavior and results.

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%, with all parameters described in the input schema (domain, format, record_type). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it stays at the baseline score.

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 'Check DNS consistency across 4 public resolvers' clearly states the tool's purpose. It specifies the action (check), resource (DNS consistency), and context (across 4 public resolvers), distinguishing it from siblings that focus on specific DNS record types or security checks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for specific DNS checks (e.g., check_dnssec, check_spf), the agent lacks context on when a general resolver consistency check is appropriate.

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