infra_ns_diversity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden. It discloses the specific checks performed and risk interpretation, but does not describe output format, whether it performs live DNS resolution, or any edge-case behavior, leaving room for 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, method, and risk meaning. Each sentence contributes essential information without 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation purpose and method, but omits any statement of what the tool returns (e.g., risk score, list of providers). This omission is significant because there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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 only parameter, 'domain', is already fully described in the schema with a placeholder example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, 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 action ('Analyze nameserver diversity for a domain') and elaborates with three concrete checks (ASNs, /24 subnets, providers), which clearly distinguishes it from other infrastructure and DNS tools in the sibling list.

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 use for assessing nameserver redundancy but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools, nor provide any exclusion criteria. The risk interpretation at the end offers context but not direct guidance.

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