check_zone_hygiene

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as side effects (e.g., network requests) or failure modes. It aligns with annotations but does not enhance transparency beyond what is already provided.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently states the action ('Audit DNS zone hygiene'), the specific checks performed, and the intended usage. The structure is clear and directly to the point.

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 audit tool, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core functionality, key findings, and usage scenarios. It does not detail output format or limitations, but these are likely straightforward for a check tool and can be inferred. The description gives enough context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

All three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh) are fully described in the schema with clear meanings (e.g., format: 'Output verbosity'). The tool description does not elaborate on these, such as what 'full' vs 'compact' output entails or when to use force_refresh. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra parameter clarity.

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's purpose: auditing DNS zone hygiene. It specifies the types of issues it identifies (sensitive subdomains, stale SOA records, zone propagation issues) and mentions a specific use case (finding unintended public subdomains). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower 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 a clear usage directive: 'Use to find any sensitive subdomains that should not be publicly visible, or to audit overall DNS zone cleanliness.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the scoped purpose is sufficient for typical decision-making.

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