dns_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral transparency. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, default type behavior, or what is returned if a domain has no records. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('Query DNS records for a domain') and lists the record types. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple DNS lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core functionality sufficiently. However, it lacks details on default record type when 'type' is omitted and the structure of the response, which an agent might need for robust invocation. Minor gaps but not critical for a simple tool.

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 50% ('type' has a description, 'domain' does not). The tool description lists the valid record types, which reinforces the 'type' parameter semantics. However, it does not add additional meaning for the 'domain' parameter or mention that 'type' is optional and what the default behavior might be.

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 it 'Quer[ies] DNS records for a domain' and lists the specific record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like whois_lookup or ip_geolocation.

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 implies usage when DNS records are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it. The context is clear enough but relies on the tool name and obvious purpose.

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