Check DNS Alignment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's statement about returning missing/unexpected records aligns and adds specificity. It does not contradict annotations, and it clarifies the output type beyond the annotations alone.

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 concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and outcome, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (many record types, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the primary goal but lacks details on return format and parameter effects, which could be helpful for correct usage.

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 0%, but the description provides no elaboration on parameters. It does not explain the purpose of 'domain', 'expectedRecords', 'includeTtlInMatch', or 'includeUnexpectedOfTypes', leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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: comparing expected DNS records against actual ones, identifying missing and unexpected records. It uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'Returns') and resources ('DNS records', 'Spaceship'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_dns_records or save_dns_records.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('verifying DNS configurations match your infrastructure requirements'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools context suggests obvious exclusions.

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