privacy_doh_test

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

With no annotations, the description provides the core behavioral detail: it sends a JSON API query and checks response format, status, and DNSSEC AD bit. This conveys a read-only probing action without prior annotation support, but it omits potential network latency, error behavior, or response structure. It's adequate but not deeply 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?

The description is three tightly written sentences: purpose, method, and supported inputs. No redundant text, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes distinct information.

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 a single simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it works, and which inputs are valid. It doesn't explicitly state return values, but for a straightforward test tool this is a minor gap; the description is largely complete for its complexity.

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 description for 'server' is already thorough (100% coverage), but the tool description adds value by listing supported providers (Cloudflare, Google, Quad9) and clarifying that custom URLs are allowed. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's examples.

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 identifies the tool as testing DNS-over-HTTPS endpoints, with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) endpoint connectivity and response'). It details what it does (sends a JSON API query, checks response format, status, and DNSSEC AD bit), and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like privacy_dot_test and privacy_doq_test by specifying the protocol.

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 gives clear context on usage: testing DoH endpoints, with support for Cloudflare, Google, Quad9, and custom servers. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the protocol-specific wording makes the intended use case unambiguous relative to siblings.

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