dns_propagation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the concrete method (five named public resolvers asked simultaneously), the reported output concept (which resolvers agree, with TTLs), and a non-obvious interpretation caveat about load balancing. It doesn't mention edge cases like resolver failures, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler: the first states the action, scope, and output; the second adds an important interpretive caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose, method, and output concept. Missing details like exact output shape or default record type are minor because parameters are documented in the schema; slightly more detail about the return format would make it 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 is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description maps the resolver enum values to full provider names and conveys the simultaneous-query semantics, but it does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning for domain/type beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a DNS change has propagated by querying multiple resolvers simultaneously and reporting agreement with TTLs. It names the exact resolvers and adds a load-balancing caveat, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling dns_lookup.

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 use case is implied ('Check whether a DNS change has propagated'), and the multi-resolver comparison suggests when it is appropriate, but the description does not explicitly route between this tool and dns_lookup or state when not to use it. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative.

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