dig_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any prerequisites. The description only lists parameters, leaving the agent without information about side effects or runtime behavior.

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 and to the point, with each parameter on its own line. It avoids unnecessary prose and earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with a brief opening sentence about when to use it.

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 simple DNS lookup, the description covers parameter semantics well, but it lacks behavioral context such as output format, network requirements, or any side effects. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should offer more context about what the tool returns and how it behaves, making it only partially complete.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter with examples. 'domain' is defined as the target domain, 'record_type' includes a list of valid values, 'dns_server' is clearly optional, and 'short' describes its boolean effect. This is complete and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 'DNS lookup using dig', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dig_zone_transfer by implying a standard lookup rather than a zone transfer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied through the parameter list (domain, record_type, etc.) and the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like whois_lookup or dig_zone_transfer. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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