dns.propagation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query and mentions a 'diff table' output, but does not describe resolver selection, DoH behavior, permissions, latency, or what the diff actually compares.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the telegraphic phrasing 'Same record' lacks an antecedent and the sentence fragment does not provide clear structure. It is concise to the point of being cryptic.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the two parameters, which resolvers are used, how DoH is involved, or what the diff table contains.

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 description says nothing about the required 'name' parameter or the optional 'record' parameter. 'Same record' hints at a record but does not explain the parameters, enum values, or default.

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 fragment conveys that it queries the same DNS record at multiple trusted resolvers and DoH endpoints and produces a diff table. However, it omits an explicit verb like 'check propagation' and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as dns.lookup, dns.resolvers, or dns.hijackcheck.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is for propagation comparison rather than ordinary lookup or hijack detection.

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