dns_propagation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying the number and types of DNS servers checked and the purpose (checking propagation status). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format, which are important for a tool that queries external servers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds clarifying details in the second. Every sentence earns its place by specifying the scope and outcome without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (querying multiple external servers) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and scope well but omits behavioral details like response structure, potential delays, or error conditions that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Check DNS propagation') and resource ('for a domain'), including the scope ('across 18+ global DNS servers') and examples of servers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' by focusing on propagation status rather than general DNS querying.

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 implies usage context ('Shows if DNS changes have propagated worldwide'), which suggests it's for verifying recent DNS updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'dns_lookup' or 'dns_record', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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