report_best_practice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what checks are performed and that it returns pass/fail per check plus a score. It lacks explicit statements about being read-only or side-effect-free, but the report nature is clear. No annotation contradictions.

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 a single, moderately long sentence that packs in the tool's purpose, specific checks, and output format. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values; it does by stating pass/fail per check and an overall score. It lists example checks but not an exhaustive list, and lacks details on error handling or edge cases. Still, for a single-parameter report tool, it 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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: performing CIS DNS Benchmark-style best practice checks, and enumerates specific areas (DNSSEC, email auth, NS diversity, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single checks (e.g., dnssec_validate) or other report types (e.g., report_rfc_compliance).

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 usage as a comprehensive best-practice audit report, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or state any exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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