util_dns_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose rate limits, caching behavior, error responses, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the domain does not exist). The burden falls entirely on the description, which only states what records are resolved.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and record types. However, brevity sacrifices some needed detail, but given the simplicity, it remains appropriately sized.

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 DNS lookup tool with no output schema and a bare-minimum input schema, the description omits key details: how to invoke it, expected output format, error handling, and examples. It leaves significant gaps for an agent to use correctly, especially among many sibling utilities.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (only an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties: true), so the description must compensate. It lists record types but does not explain how to specify the domain or record type in the arguments object, leaving the agent to guess the expected structure. Minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 it resolves DNS record types (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, NS) for domain and delivery checks, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like util_domain_trust_report or util_rdap_lookup, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for fast domain and delivery checks' implies a quick DNS query use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., util_rdap_lookup for registry data) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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