validate_dnssec

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

Discloses it is a read-only operation ('Single HTTP GET, no auth, no destructive actions') and describes the full validation process, including what it checks (signatures, algorithm strength, key rollover) and what it returns (chain steps, grades, boolean). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, each sentence adds value. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (DNSSEC chain validation) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the validation steps, return values (chain steps, grades, boolean), and use case. No missing critical information.

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 coverage is 100% for one parameter 'domain', so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the domain is used in chain validation from root, adding value beyond 'Domain name, e.g. example.com'.

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 performs DNSSEC chain validation, walking the DS/DNSKEY chain, checking signatures, algorithm strength, and key rollover state. It distinguishes itself from lookup_dns(type='DNSKEY') by specifying it returns chain steps and validity, not raw data.

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 says 'Use when a domain claims DNSSEC; use lookup_dns(type='DNSKEY') for raw key data only.' This provides clear guidance on when and when not to use, including an alternative tool.

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