Nslookup Query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about output format (raw nslookup text vs. structured data), timeouts, failure behavior for NXDOMAIN, or whether the specified server is actually honored. 'Using nslookup' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A networking tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema sits in a crowded sibling set of near-duplicate DNS tools. The description does nothing to disambiguate or describe the response, which is a real gap for an agent picking among dig_query, host_lookup and this one.

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. The description adds no extra meaning such as accepted record type values or how server defaults are resolved, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Perform DNS lookup using nslookup'. That is clearer than a tautology and hints at the underlying implementation, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as dig_query, host_lookup or reverse_dns_lookup.

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 guidance on when to choose this over dig_query or host_lookup, no statement about reverse lookups (covered by reverse_dns_lookup), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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