contrastapi

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, yet provides none. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only lookup, if it caches results, rate limits, or what data structure is returned (raw DNS response vs parsed records).

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?

While the description is brief, it suffers from under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A two-word noun phrase cannot adequately convey tool semantics; this is not 'front-loaded' information but rather missing information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It fails to specify which DNS record types are retrieved, whether it performs recursive resolution, or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for agent use.

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% (empty string for 'domain'), and the description fails to compensate. It does not clarify expected input format (FQDN vs apex domain, with or without trailing dot), nor does it explain that 'domain' is the target to query for DNS records.

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 'Dns Records' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with different casing. It fails to specify the action performed (retrieve, list, query) or what DNS record types are returned (A, MX, NS, TXT, etc.), leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's actual function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like subdomain_enum, domain_report, or whois_lookup. Given the overlapping reconnaissance functionality in the sibling list, the agent cannot determine if this queries authoritative nameservers, performs a full zone transfer, or simply resolves A records.

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