dns_propagation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool queries many public resolvers, reports per-resolver results, and provides a consistency check, which conveys the read-only nature and output behavior. It does not mention potential limitations like query time or rate limits, but for this type of non-destructive DNS check, the provided information is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and includes both method and output details. Every phrase contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (only two parameters, both documented) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and expected results. The mention of per-resolver results and consistency check provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (domain and type, including supported types and default), so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Per the rule, with >80% schema coverage, 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Check' with resource 'DNS propagation' and explains the method (querying 20+ globally distributed public resolvers). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup by emphasizing global coverage and consistency checks.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a global propagation check is needed, as it queries 20+ resolvers and reports geo-based differences. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear that for single-resolver lookups other tools might be more appropriate.

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