dnssec_validate

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 explains that the tool queries DNSKEY, DS, and RRSIG records at each level and reports one of three outcomes. This provides meaningful insight into the tool's operation and output, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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 core action, and contains no unnecessary filler. Every clause adds value, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with no output schema, but the description covers the key aspects: what is validated, the record types involved, and possible outcomes. It does not detail the output format or edge cases, but for a validation tool with a simple status result, this is reasonably complete.

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% for the only parameter (domain), and the schema already describes it well. The description does not add any additional parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra value is added beyond the schema.

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: full DNSSEC chain of trust validation from root to TLD to domain. It specifies the resources queried (DNSKEY, DS, RRSIG) and the output (valid, broken, or not signed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dnssec_check_ds or dnssec_check_dnskey, which only validate individual record types.

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 this tool (for full chain validation) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative sibling tools such as dnssec_full_audit or dnssec_check_*. There is no 'when-not' guidance or explicit recommendation for other tools, so the usage context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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