Dns Lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the specific record types that can be resolved, which is behavioral information not present in the annotations or schema. It does not mention potential nuances like invalid types or empty results, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, and the supported record types are listed compactly.

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?

For a straightforward read-only DNS lookup tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the supported record types, and the hostname target. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no records found, invalid type handling), but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'hostname' for the host parameter and implicitly enumerates valid values for record_type by listing record types. However, it does not explicitly state that record_type defaults to 'A' or that only these listed types are accepted, leaving some inference required for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('DNS records for a hostname') and enumerates the supported record types (A, AAAA, MX, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup_all or whois_domain without needing to inspect schemas.

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 (resolving a specific DNS record type) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as dns_lookup_all (which likely returns all records) or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for simple cases, but exclusions and comparisons are left to inference.

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