Dig Query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: it does not say whether dig must be installed on the host, whether the call blocks on a timeout, whether failures (NXDOMAIN, SERVFAIL, unreachable server) return errors or empty results, or what the response shape is. The only behavioral hint is 'using dig', which implies an external command execution.

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?

A single six-word sentence, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. It is efficient but terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a three-parameter tool whose invocation semantics (default record type behavior, null server meaning, resolver timeouts, installed-tool prerequisites) are left entirely to the agent's assumptions. The definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 domain, server, and record_type are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax hints (e.g. record_type values like MX/TXT/AAAA, or server address format) 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?

States a concrete verb+resource (DNS lookup) and names the underlying utility (dig), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as nslookup_query, host_lookup, or reverse_dns_lookup, so an agent gets no signal about which DNS tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the many near-duplicate DNS/network siblings are mentioned. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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