get_dns_resolver_settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the content of the returned configuration (enable state, DNSSEC, forwarding mode, DHCP registration, custom options), which helps the agent understand the scope of the response. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides useful elaboration on return contents. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only getter with zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations declaring safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what it returns and is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter details (none needed). This is appropriate.

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's verb ('Get') and specific resource ('current DNS Resolver (Unbound) settings'), and the parenthetical 'Unbound' distinguishes it from the similar sibling tool get_dns_forwarder_settings. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context by naming the exact resource (Unbound settings), which implies when to use it, especially compared to the sibling get_dns_forwarder_settings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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