Collect router-side DNS evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by listing the compared elements (observations, generated settings, Fake-IP addresses, listeners), which clarifies what the tool actually inspects. No contradiction.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no wasted words. It communicates scope effectively in under 20 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 read-only compare tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level overview but lacks details on return value format, how to interpret comparisons, or parameter effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention domain, qtype, or server parameters. It gives an indirect hint that a domain is needed (DNS observations), but qtype and server semantics remain undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' and identifies the exact resources: OpenWrt and Mihomo DNS observations, generated DNS settings, Fake-IP addresses, and listeners. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_network or read_logs.

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 a diagnostic comparison use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides clear context (router-side DNS evidence) but lacks direct guidance on selection.

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