dns_lookup

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses key behaviors: uses Cloudflare DoH over HTTPS, follows CNAME chains, has a 5-second timeout, returns a JSON array of answer objects with name/type/data, and on error returns a string. This covers expected operational details.

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 paragraph that front-loads purpose, provides usage guidance, and then technical details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Explains return format (JSON array with name/type/data) and error handling despite no output schema. Covers core aspects well, but lacks detail on CNAME chaining behavior or limits. Adequate for a simple tool.

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 description adds helpful clarification for 'name' (FQDN preferred, relative labels accepted) and lists common record types for 'type'. However, it lists additional types (SOA, CAA, SRV) not present in the schema enum, creating inconsistency and potential confusion. Schema coverage is 100% but description partly misaligns.

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 a single DNS record type and returns raw answers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dossier_dns (multi-type audit) and dossier_full (complete health check) by specifying its targeted, single-record focus.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('quick, targeted lookups of one record type') and when to prefer alternatives ('prefer dossier_dns for a full multi-type DNS audit... dossier_full for a complete domain health check'). Provides clear context for agent decision-making.

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