Dns Resolve

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and further clarifies that the tool does not produce final findings but only candidates, adding transparency beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, combining the core action with a relevant caveat about dangling delegation, with no superfluous 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 description adequately conveys the main behavior and output (records plus flags), and the existence of an output schema is noted. Minor gap: exact output format is not described, but the simple nature of the tool makes it sufficiently complete.

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 explain the parameters 'target' or 'record_types'. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for lack of schema-level descriptions, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Clearly states it resolves hosts and returns specific record types (A/AAAA/CNAME/MX/NS/TXT), and distinguishes its role from sibling tools like dns_permute by mentioning the dangling delegation use case.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: for resolving DNS records and identifying potential dangling delegations, and explicitly says these are candidates for takeover_verify, not findings on their own.

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