list_dns_lookups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — platform-dependent refusal on Linux and why (per-process resolver libraries, no centralized record). It does not say what a returned lookup record contains, leaving that gap.

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?

Three tight sentences with the scope upfront and no filler; the final sentence is dense, packing two alternative tools and their distinctions, but each clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Platform gate, alternatives, and the trace prerequisite are covered, which is the crucial decision information for a four-filter tool. With no output schema, the description never sketches what a lookup record looks like (name, requesting program, timestamp), which is the remaining gap.

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% and each parameter already carries its own description, including ranges and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the DNS lookups programs made') plus a hard platform scope ('on Windows'), which immediately separates it from list_connections and get_network_usage by naming what those do instead.

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?

Explicitly states a do-not-call condition ('On Linux it always refuses, so do not call it there') with the technical reason, and names two alternative siblings for adjacent questions (list_connections for remote names, get_network_usage for volumes).

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