check_dns_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool performs DNS probes, can accept custom domains, defaults to public services, and returns a JSON verdict. 'Audit' implies a non-mutating diagnostic operation, which is useful transparency even though explicit safety or permission details are not stated.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. The main purpose is front-loaded, every sentence adds useful information, and there is no repetition of schema fields.

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 one-optional-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, input behavior, default behavior, and return content. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. Minor gaps such as timeout behavior or possible failure modes are not described, but the output schema may cover return details.

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 schema only defines 'domains' as an optional array/null with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that domains is a custom probe list and defaults to essential public services. This adds real meaning beyond the schema, though it does not specify domain formatting constraints or example values.

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 clearly identifies the resource: system DNS resolution health, configured nameservers, and query responsiveness. This distinguishes it from the sibling health/network tools, which target different subsystems.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when DNS resolution health, nameserver configuration, or query latency needs to be assessed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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