check_dns_propagation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is read-only HTTP with no auth and no destructive actions, reinforcing the annotations and adding the no-auth detail. It also explains the output includes every resolver response plus propagation percentage and inconsistency list, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and safety. No wasted words.

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 read-only diagnostic tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's scope, output, usage context, and safety. The sibling tools are numerous but the description clearly differentiates from the most similar one (lookup_dns).

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 all three parameters. The description adds that defaults are A and 'all', which is already in the schema defaults, and mentions the domain format constraint (no URL, path, or port) which is also in the schema. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 compares DNS responses across nine resolvers to detect propagation lag, missing answers, or inconsistent TTL/data values. It specifies the default record type and region, and distinguishes it from lookup_dns, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when records were just changed and staleness is suspected, and directs to lookup_dns for a single DNS-over-HTTPS lookup. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative tool named.

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