dns_wildcard_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the detection methodology (resolving random subdomains and comparing IPs) and the interpretation of results. It does not mention potential rate limiting or query volume, but the behavior is straightforward and read-only.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the action and method, with no redundant details. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, behavior, and relevance.

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 low complexity (two simple params), the description covers the action, method, and why it matters. No output schema exists, so return-value details would be helpful, but the description sufficiently enables correct selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about random names but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides, such as the default for 'samples' and the example for 'domain'.

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 tool's purpose: 'Detect wildcard DNS configurations by resolving multiple random non-existent subdomains.' It uses a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('wildcard DNS configurations') and explains the method, distinguishing it from siblings like dns_subdomain_enum or ct_wildcard_audit.

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 notes that 'Wildcard DNS can affect subdomain enumeration accuracy and security assessments,' which implies when this tool is valuable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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