webcheck_dns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the endpoint path (/dns) but no additional behavioral context such as rate limits or response structure. No contradiction exists.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and target. It contains no redundant information and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 straightforward read-only DNS fetch, the description with a fully covered schema and strong annotations is sufficient. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the type of DNS records returned (e.g., A, MX, TXT), but the tool name and purpose make this inferable.

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 all four parameters (url, timeout, base_url, max_chars) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not need to repeat parameter details; it remains consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (fetch), the resource (DNS records for a domain), and the specific endpoint (/dns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like webcheck_ssl or webcheck_whois by naming the exact data type.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for fetching DNS records. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling names. It lacks explicit 'use this for DNS, use webcheck_ssl for certificates' guidance.

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