check_zone_hygiene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the audit scope by naming sensitive subdomains, stale SOA records, and propagation issues, but it does not add deeper operational context such as caching behavior, rate limits, or what the audit cannot detect.

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 tightly scoped sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded in 'Audit DNS zone hygiene'. The second sentence directly supports selection by defining the intended use cases, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool is a read-only, three-parameter audit with complete schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter formats. It covers the core purpose and use cases well. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing, which matters given the large number of adjacent DNS checks.

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 the input schema already documents domain, format, and force_refresh. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: 'Audit DNS zone hygiene', and enumerates concrete findings such as sensitive subdomains, stale SOA records, and propagation issues. This makes the tool's scope clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related siblings like check_shadow_domains, discover_subdomains, or check_subdomain_takeover.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use to find any sensitive subdomains that should not be publicly visible, or to audit overall DNS zone cleanliness.' That tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when to avoid it or which sibling tool to choose for narrower checks.

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