dnssec_full_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the tool's behavior in detail: it runs seven specific checks and aggregates results into a severity-scored report with remediation guidance. This goes beyond a generic 'audits DNSSEC' and informs the agent about the tool's scope and output, though it does not explicitly mention read-only nature or potential prerequisites.

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 long and thoroughly front-loaded, starting with 'Comprehensive DNSSEC audit' and immediately enumerating the seven checks. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a well-described schema and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's core function and output format (severity-scored report with remediation). It lists all sub-checks, giving a complete picture of what the audit entails. Minor gaps like error handling or runtime expectations prevent a 5.

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 single parameter 'domain' has 100% schema description coverage, providing clear meaning ('The domain name to perform a full DNSSEC audit on'). The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states, 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 states a specific verb ('runs') and resource ('all 7 DNSSEC checks') and enumerates each check, making it clear this is the comprehensive audit tool. It distinctively differentiates from sibling tools like dnssec_check_ds or dnssec_check_rrsig by explicitly covering all checks in one operation.

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 full, comprehensive DNSSEC audit is needed rather than individual checks. The phrase 'all 7 DNSSEC checks' and 'comprehensive' provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of individual dnssec_check_* tools.'

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