peerglass_dns_enumerate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it specifies the return format includes 'Per-type record tables with TTL values' and clarifies that SPF/DMARC policies are extracted 'inline' rather than requiring separate calls. It does not mention error behaviors for invalid domains.

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 well-structured with clear sections (action, Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the primary verb. Every sentence provides specific value: the record type list, the extraction feature, parameter types, and return structure. The docstring format adds slight verbosity but improves scanability.

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?

Given the rich annotations (4 hints) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by detailing what data is returned (tables with TTL) and the specific record types covered. It appropriately focuses on functional specifics rather than re-stating safety properties already covered by 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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0% (the 'params' wrapper lacks description), the description carries the full burden. It clearly documents both parameters: domain with type and example, and response_format with type, allowed values ('markdown', 'json'), and default value. It does not mention domain length constraints present in 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 the specific action (enumerate), resource (DNS record types), and comprehensive scope (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, SOA, CNAME, CAA, SRV). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing 'all common... in one call' and highlighting the bonus SPF/DMARC extraction feature.

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 this is a comprehensive enumeration tool via 'in one call' and the exhaustive list of record types, suggesting use when complete DNS data is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like peerglass_dns_resolve or peerglass_dns_email_security, and doesn't advise on selecting between markdown vs JSON formats.

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