dnssec_check_rrsig

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value beyond the name by stating that it reports days until expiry and flags signatures expiring within 7 days. However, it does not describe error handling, behavior when no RRSIG records exist, or the exact response format, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 purpose, followed by details on what is extracted and the key output threshold (7 days). Every sentence earns its place 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 single parameter, no output schema, and simple scope, the description covers the purpose, extracted fields, expiry reporting, and flagging threshold. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the outcome, though adding a note on return structure or non-existent RRSIG cases would improve completeness.

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% with a clear description for the 'domain' parameter ('The domain name to check RRSIG records for (e.g. 'example.com')'). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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+resource combination: 'Check RRSIG (Resource Record Signature) records for a domain', and elaborates on what it does (extracts type covered, algorithm, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dnssec_check_dnskey or dnssec_validate by focusing specifically on RRSIG records and their expiry.

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 the tool is for checking RRSIG expiry information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., dnssec_validate, dnssec_check_ds). There's no mention of when not to use it or how it fits into a broader DNSSEC audit workflow.

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