DNS proxy status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which covers the safety profile. The description adds 'compact' (implying a summarized response) and 'relevant errors' (implying error containment), but does not detail response shape, error format, or any rate-limit/consistency caveats. Given the annotations, the added context is modest but adequate for a trivial read-only tool.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding what the tool returns, and the structure is immediately scannable. Perfect economy for a no-input status tool.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description enumerates all expected contents and notes the compact nature. It does not specify return format or pagination, but there is no output schema and no complexity warrants further detail. What an agent needs to know to call it correctly (nothing) and what it returns (the listed elements) is fully covered.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially 100% covered. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter details (there are none), so it neither helps nor hurts; the baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('get') and a precise resource ('DNS proxy state'), then enumerates distinct payload elements: upstream resolvers, encrypted-DNS metadata, static host count, and relevant errors. This clearly differentiates it from sibling status tools like get_wifi_status or get_internet_status, which target different subsystems.

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 purpose implies use for DNS-state queries, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling status tools, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use get_connection_status for broader network health'). Usage is implied by the title and content list, not spelled out.

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