check_dns_propagation

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses it is 'read-only HTTP, no auth, typical latency 5-15s', covering key behavioral traits. It does not mention rate limits or potential errors, but the disclosed information is substantial and matches the tool's read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, defaults, output, usage guidelines, and latency. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers purpose, parameters defaults, output nature, usage context, and behavioral traits, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating defaults ('Defaults to record type A, region all') and explaining that results include per-resolver answers with mismatch grouping and consensus, which goes beyond the schema.

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 compares DNS responses across multiple resolvers to detect propagation lag, with a specific verb (compare) and resource (DNS responses). It also distinguishes itself from sibling lookup_dns by highlighting its multi-resolver scope.

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 'Use when records were just changed and you suspect staleness' and provides an alternative: 'for single-resolver lookups use lookup_dns instead'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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