skuuy_resolve_dns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the burden. The description still adds real value: it discloses the two execution modes, the global edge PoP fan-out behavior, and that DNSSEC validation status is included. It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or failure behavior, but it is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three tight sentences: core purpose first, then the mode-selection rule keyed to 'locations', then the record-type and DNSSEC surface. No filler and the most decision-relevant information 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably: it describes both the single-lookup result and the propagation matrix. It could say more about matrix structure or DNSSEC status values, but for a read-only resolver with only one required parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 67%, with 'domain' and 'locations' documented in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'locations' actually produces (a propagation matrix across edge PoPs) and by enumerating the full set of supported record types that the 'types' enum allows. Only the practical limit/format nuances of the arrays are left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolves DNS records for a domain') and immediately distinguishes the two operational modes: single edge-resolver lookup versus propagation matrix. An agent can predict both the purpose and the two distinct result shapes without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties the 'locations' parameter to a use case ('useful to verify DNS changes propagated worldwide'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It lacks any when-not or exclusion guidance (e.g., when to prefer a sibling tool or when NOT to use many locations), so it stops 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.