infra_amplification

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 mechanism (sends a small query, measures response size ratio) and the interpretation (>10x indicates DDoS risk). It does not detail output format or error handling, but for a single-parameter tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding necessary information: purpose, method, and threshold significance. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what it does, how it works, and what the results imply. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'nameserver' with a clear description. The tool description does not add much beyond the schema, but it reinforces the parameter's role as the target nameserver. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantics.

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 measures DNS amplification factor of a nameserver, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infra_open_resolver and infra_rate_limiting by focusing specifically on amplification factor and DDoS risk.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for measuring DNS amplification factor to assess DDoS risk. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling tools.

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