dns_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a lookup but doesn't describe what the lookup entails—whether it's a read-only query, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format might be. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded, with the core purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about supported record types without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functionality from examples.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, error handling, or performance considerations. For a DNS lookup tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It lists example record types ('including A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, SOA, PTR, CAA, SRV, DNSKEY, DS, TLSA, HTTPS, SPF, and more') but doesn't explain their purposes or when to use specific types. The schema already documents parameters thoroughly, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Look up a specific DNS record type for a domain.' It specifies the verb ('look up'), resource ('DNS record'), and scope ('specific type for a domain'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' or 'dns_propagation', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Supports 53 record types' but doesn't explain when to choose this over sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' or 'dns_propagation'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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