privacy_resolver_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is tested and that a score is produced, but does not explain scoring methodology, potential test failures, or whether the audit is non-intrusive. 'Audit' suggests read-only behavior, but this is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and lists key capabilities without waste. Highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks details on failure handling or score interpretation, but the core is sufficient for invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description already specifies 'IP address or hostname of the DNS resolver.' The tool description adds no further detail about accepted formats or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a comprehensive privacy audit of a DNS resolver, listing specific tests (DoH, DoT, DNSSEC, DNS Cookie) and the output (score 0-100). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like privacy_doh_test or privacy_dot_test, which focus on individual tests.

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 a holistic privacy assessment by calling it 'comprehensive' and enumerating tested protocols. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context of sibling tools makes this clear.

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