resolve_dns_over_https

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It does mention multi-provider behavior and the cost, but it fails to state that payment is mandatory or explain the response format and error handling. The cost is mentioned as a parenthetical, but it doesn't explicitly say the paymentSignature is required. This leaves gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence with the core function front-loaded and the cost as a parenthetical. There is zero waste, and the key information is presented efficiently. It earns a 5 for economy and structure.

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 incomplete for a tool that requires payment and has a generic payload. It does not explain what the payload should contain, what the response will be (no output schema), or that the paymentSignature is required for execution. An agent would lack critical details to call this tool correctly, making it incomplete for the task.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the payload parameter beyond the generic 'Input parameters or JSON string payload'. It does not clarify that the payload should contain the DNS query, and the paymentSignature is only referenced via cost. The description adds minimal value over 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 states a specific verb (resolve) and resource (DNS via DoH) and names three providers, clearly distinguishing this tool from any sibling. It also includes the value proposition of bypassing ISP poisoning, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the use case: when local DNS is unreliable due to ISP poisoning or timeouts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but since no sibling tool performs DNS resolution, the guidance is adequate. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.

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