DNS-Shop Self-Check

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical runtime behavior: it uses the operator's Chrome via CDP, treats Qrator-blocked or CDP-down as inconclusive transport failures, and defines drift strictly as a rendered page yielding zero tiles. This substantially reduces the risk of misinterpreting transport errors as drift.

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?

Three short sections deliver the core purpose, the critical tri-state interpretation rule, and the return type with no filler. The description is front-loaded and every sentence adds useful 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?

For a zero-parameter tool that already has an output schema and safety annotations, this description fully covers the important behavioral nuances and edge cases. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation appears to be missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no schema gap needs compensating.

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 opens with a specific verb-noun pair ('Structural drift canary') and names the target resource ('DNS-Shop'), then concretely states what it does: renders a live search page and checks tile extraction. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like dns_search and the other *_selfcheck tools.

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 clearly establishes this as a drift canary for DNS-Shop, which implies monitoring/health-check usage, and it gives explicit decision rules for interpreting inconclusive vs drift. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear 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.