peerglass_dns_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context about the specific RDAP fields returned (holder, country, RIR, covering prefix) and the output format (DNS records table + RDAP details), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 Args/Returns structure is organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the inclusion of the non-existent record_type parameter wastes space and creates confusion. The length is otherwise appropriate for the complexity.

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?

The description adequately explains the return value (string with table + RDAP details) which complements the existing output schema. However, the parameter documentation is incomplete/inaccurate due to the phantom parameter, and it lacks guidance on rate limits or auth needs despite openWorldHint being true.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage per context signals, the description attempts to compensate by documenting parameters with examples (e.g., '8.8.8.8', 'cloudflare.com'). However, it erroneously documents a 'record_type' parameter that does not exist in the input schema, which could confuse the agent about available functionality.

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 tool resolves hostnames or reverse-looks up IPs and specifically distinguishes itself from basic DNS tools by correlating results with RDAP registration data (holder, country, RIR, covering prefix). The specific verb+resource combination is precise.

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 through the RDAP correlation feature but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like peerglass_dns_enumerate, peerglass_geo_lookup, or rir_query_ip. It does clarify it handles both forward and reverse lookups.

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