DNSSEC Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: uses DNS-over-HTTPS, reads the AD flag, and returns specific fields. No contradictions. It provides context beyond annotations, though it could mention rate limits or caching 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 (4-5 lines) with a clear front-loaded purpose, followed by parameter listing, return shape, and a concrete example. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, simple output) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, mechanics, parameters, return structure, and an example, leaving no gaps for the agent.

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. The description adds value by showing the output structure and providing an example usage ('Is cloudflare.com DNSSEC-signed?'), which helps the agent understand parameter semantics contextually.

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 checks DNSSEC protection by querying DS and DNSKEY records and confirming chain of trust. It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('domain DNSSEC'), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like dns_lookup.

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 for DNSSEC validation and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dns_lookup) or specify when not to use it. The context signals (sibling list) help, but the description itself lacks exclusionary guidance.

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