dnssec_check_ds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: queries DS from parent, DNSKEY from child, verifies existence, and reports algorithm strength and digest type. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), error handling, or whether it performs live DNS queries, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the verb and quickly cover purpose, method, and output. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview: what it checks, how it queries, and what it reports (algorithm strength and digest type). It could be more complete by describing the exact return structure or failure behavior, but for a simple tool it covers the essential context.

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 coverage is 100%: the 'domain' parameter is already described as 'The domain name to check DS records for (e.g. 'example.com')'. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter format or constraints beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool checks DS records for a domain, explicitly naming the resource (Delegation Signer records) and the action ('Check'). It further distinguishes from siblings like dnssec_check_dnskey and dnssec_validate by specifying it queries DS from parent zone and DNSKEY from child zone, and reports algorithm strength and digest 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to check DS records for a domain. It provides clear context (e.g., querying both parent and child zones) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use dnssec_validate for full chain validation'.

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