Origin Bypass Check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the semantics of the outcome: an A record landing outside known WAF/CDN ranges means the origin is exposed and bypassable. It does not state that this is a non-mutating remote lookup, nor mention rate limits or any auth/scope constraints.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence and the interpretive payoff in the second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description usefully explains how to interpret a positive result. It is nearly complete, though it omits prerequisites (e.g., that discovery should precede it) and any note on the read-only nature of the check given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'host' and the optional 'from_token'. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as format, chaining behavior of the token, or what the tool does when the token is omitted, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Check whether a WAF-protected host resolves directly to its origin IP') and even explains the mechanism that makes the result meaningful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like dns_resolve or waf_detect, so an agent must infer the difference from the security framing alone.

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 by describing the precondition ('WAF-protected host') and what a positive finding means (WAF can be bypassed via spoofed Host header). However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus dns_resolve or waf_detect, nor any ordering or exclusion guidance.

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