Diagnose a blocked website

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the recent window and that dependent domains may appear separately, but it does not describe result formatting or what happens when nothing is found.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a meaningful usage nuance. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only diagnostic tool, especially with strong annotations. However, with five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, it leaves some gaps around return values and optional parameter behavior.

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 only 20% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining more parameters. It clarifies that 'site' is the site the user tried and implies a recency window, but it leaves limit, endpointId, and search semantics mostly unaddressed 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 finds DNS queries blocked in the recent browsing window, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_recent_activity because it focuses on blocked DNS queries, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 clear context: supply the site you tried and use the recent browsing window. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over related tools or when not to use it.

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