report_rfc_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('Returns per-RFC pass/fail status') which is helpful, but it does not mention whether this performs DNS queries, potential side effects, or timeout behavior. The tool appears read-only, but that trait is not explicitly stated. The description adds moderate context beyond the schema but lacks richer behavioral details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Tests domain DNS compliance') and efficiently lists RFCs and their checks. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy or padding.

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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough: it specifies which RFCs are tested and the return format. It does not explain how to interpret per-RFC results (e.g., severity), but for a tool of this simplicity the description is sufficiently 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 coverage for the only parameter (domain) is 100%, with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 states the tool 'Tests domain DNS compliance with key RFCs' and enumerates the specific RFCs and what each checks (RFC 1035, 4034, 6891, 7208, 7489). This goes beyond a generic verb and resource, providing a precise scope that distinguishes this aggregated compliance report from sibling tools like dnssec_validate or email_check_spf which target individual checks.

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 for obtaining a multi-RFC compliance overview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus running individual checks like dnssec_validate or email_check_spf. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so the guidance is inferred rather than direct.

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