peerglass_dns_propagation

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent status, while the description adds crucial behavioral details: it queries specific named resolvers (Cloudflare, Google, etc.), compares answers against a majority consensus, and classifies results as 'stale, diverging, or failing.' This provides clear execution context beyond the safety hints.

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?

Well-structured with clear Purpose → Args → Returns sections. Lists the 10 specific resolvers to establish scope without excess verbosity. Every sentence conveys necessary information about functionality, comparison logic, or output format.

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 nested input schema and presence of output schema (Returns: str with table description), the description provides sufficient context. The Args section clarifies the wrapper object structure that the schema's 0% top-level coverage obscures, and annotations cover operational safety aspects.

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 at the top level (only a $ref), the Args section compensates effectively by documenting the nested structure (params containing domain, record_type, response_format), providing examples ('cloudflare.com'), and noting defaults. It does not mention pattern constraints or enum values explicitly, but covers essential semantics.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool checks 'whether a recent DNS change has propagated globally' using '10 geographically distributed resolvers simultaneously.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like peerglass_dns_resolve by emphasizing propagation status checking and majority consensus logic rather than simple resolution.

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 context ('recent DNS change') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like peerglass_dns_resolve or peerglass_dns_censorship. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance or explicit alternatives are provided.

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