peerglass_dns_censorship

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context: specific resolver sources (Cloudflare, Google, Quad9), detection methods, and return format (per-resolver response table). Does not mention timeout behavior or rate limits.

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?

Excellent structure with clear sections for purpose, detection list, arguments, and returns. Bullet points enhance scannability. No redundant text; every sentence conveys essential information about tool behavior or parameters.

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?

Comprehensive for a censorship detection tool: covers detection logic, vantage points, parameter semantics, and return value summary. Given the presence of an output schema, the brief return description is sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of execution time expectations for multi-resolver queries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting all three parameters (domain, country_code, response_format) with types, optionality, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'twitter.com', 'markdown').

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 explicitly states the tool 'Probe[s] for DNS censorship by querying a domain from multiple resolver vantage points' and lists specific detection techniques (NXDOMAIN injection, IP poisoning, DPI block) that clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like peerglass_dns_resolve or peerglass_dns_propagation.

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 'Detects' section implies usage by listing specific censorship techniques, but the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling DNS tools (e.g., 'use this instead of dns_resolve when investigating censorship').

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