DNS records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it names Cloudflare as the resolver, explains that compare:true queries Google's resolver and flags propagation differences, and states that DNSSEC validation status is reported. These are concrete behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and default types are front-loaded, followed by the optional compare behavior and DNSSEC note. Every clause adds value, and the structure is highly readable for an agent scanning 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is already defined. The description covers the essential behavioral facets: record types, TTLs, resolver, comparison mode, and DNSSEC validation. For a read-only, idempotent DNS lookup tool, this is complete—nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the burden for parameters. It explains the 'types' parameter by listing the default set (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CAA) and the 'compare' parameter by describing its boolean effect (query Google and flag differences). The 'name' parameter is implicitly clear from 'of a name'. It does not enumerate all possible types from the enum, but that is not required; it adds meaning beyond the bare 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 the operation precisely: retrieving DNS records of a name by type, listing the default types (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CAA), and adding unique features like TTLs, resolver source, comparison, and DNSSEC status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dkim and check_spf, which focus on email authentication, and domain_lookup/report which are broader domain queries.

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 makes the tool's purpose unambiguous—querying DNS records—so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., for DKIM/SPF checks use check_dkim). It gives clear context but no exclusions, which aligns with a 4.

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