dns_lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the endpoint host, the exact monetary cost (0.002 USDC per call), the settlement chain (Base mainnet), and the automatic payment mechanism via PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY. It does not cover rate limits, failure behavior, or response structure, but the cost and auth details are substantial behavioral context that an agent needs before invoking.

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 front-loaded sentence that moves from the core action and return set to operational details (cost, chain, payment wallet). Every clause carries information the agent needs, with no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential operational context: what it returns, where it calls, and the payment implications. It could add a note on error behavior or result shape, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that exactly one domain is expected ('for one domain'), but adds no format or validation details beyond what the schema's example already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full DNS record set for one domain') and enumerates the record types returned (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, NS, TXT, SOA, CAA). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like domain_profile or website_intelligence, which do not advertise raw DNS record retrieval.

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 usage by saying it fetches records 'for one domain', but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings such as domain_profile or site_check. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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