edf_dns_lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the 100-domain batch ceiling and the important interpretive caveat that a negative DNS result does not mean the domain is unregistered.

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 sentences, no filler. The operational scope is front-loaded and the caveat follows immediately, so an agent reads the actionable content first.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, limit, and result interpretation. With no output schema present, it should ideally indicate what the check returns (resolved A records vs. per-domain status), and it gives no input format guidance, leaving two real gaps.

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 0%, and the one parameter (domains) gets no format guidance in the description — it is unclear whether bare hostnames, URLs, or FQDNs are accepted. The description only echoes the schema's maxItems=100 constraint via 'up to 100 domains', adding batch framing but little semantic detail.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Run native EDF batch A-record DNS checks', with a stated scope of 'up to 100 domains'. This implicitly separates it from siblings like edf_whois_lookup and edf_check_domains by naming the exact record type and mechanism, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 line 'Missing DNS is not proof of domain availability' implies the agent should not treat this as an availability checker and should look elsewhere (e.g., whois or a domain check) for that judgment. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is provided, leaving the routing to inference.

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