audit_dns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: this is a bounded configuration check with a defined finding set, so an agent knows not to treat a clean result as a full security clearance. It still says nothing about live-vs-cached lookups or failure behavior on unresolvable domains.

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, zero filler, with the concrete finding list front-loaded and the scope caveat trailing as a qualifier. Nothing repeats the tool name or the annotations.

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, single-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the critical interpretive caveat about audit breadth. The remaining gaps (domain must exist / belongs to the account, behavior on invalid input) are minor for this tool class.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level information. The single required 'domain' parameter is largely self-documenting by name, but the schema's anyOf (string OR positive integer) is unexplained, so the description misses a real chance to disambiguate whether an ID is accepted. With only one obvious parameter the damage is limited, hence a mid score rather than a low one.

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 (inspect) and resource (DNS/email configuration) and enumerates the exact findings it produces: duplicate records, CNAME collisions, multiple SPF and DMARC. This is functionally distinct from every sibling (list_dns_records, get_dns_record, export_zone), which simply retrieve data rather than check for misconfiguration. The scope-boundary sentence further sharpens what kind of inspection this is.

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 gives a scope exclusion ('not a complete email or DNS security audit'), which tells the agent not to over-trust the output, but it never states when to call this versus list_dns_records or get_domain, nor any prerequisite (e.g., domain must exist in the account). Usage is implied rather than routed.

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