infomaniak_audit_domain_dns_admin

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds valuable context about the audit scope (DNSSEC, MX, SPF, DMARC, wildcard, TTLs), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose output format, but the output schema covers that.

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 entire description is one sentence, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and packed with specific audit items. It is concise with zero filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool has an output schema and clear annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. It sufficiently communicates the audit scope and parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention that the zone parameter defaults to the domain, which is a minor gap but covered by the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds meaning by linking 'very low TTLs' to the low_ttl_threshold parameter, helping the agent understand why that parameter exists. It does not add syntax details, but the schema already handles that.

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 a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('domain/DNS admin posture'), and enumerates the exact checks (DNSSEC, MX, SPF, DMARC, wildcard records, low TTLs). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like infomaniak_audit_dns_zones by focusing on a single domain's administrative posture.

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 for auditing a specific domain's DNS security posture, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as infomaniak_audit_dns_zones or infomaniak_dns_list_records. No exclusions or comparison are provided, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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