check_root_server_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context the annotations cannot: each call samples only 3 rotating root servers, so consecutive calls may return different observations, and the env-var dependency changes whether results are real probes or static reference data. Minor tension with idempotentHint, but that hint concerns side effects, not identical output, so it is not a 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the sampling behavior and the comparison targets lead, and the degraded-mode caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description still supplies the two non-obvious facts (3-server rotating sampling, probe-optional degradation), leaving only minor gaps like expected latency or frequency limits.

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% and the single optional format enum is documented with auto-detection behavior in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (query root servers) plus the exact dimensions compared: priming NS set, glue, SOA serials, and cross-root consistency. No sibling tool targets the root server set, so an agent can route here unambiguously from the name and description alone.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it works best with BV_INFRA_PROBE available, and without it returns embedded hints as reference data only, which tells the agent when the output is actionable vs. informational. It stops short of naming alternatives such as check_resolver_consistency or saying when not to use this tool.

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