dns_get_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (counts and top lists) and the operation is clearly a read-only 'Get', but it does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or any caveats. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the verb and resource, immediately followed by the return value composition. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and return values. It could be improved by noting the default period (LastDay) or any aggregation limits, but these are already in the schema or are minor.

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 input schema already covers the single 'period' parameter with enum values and a description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('DNS query statistics') and enumerates the return categories (total queries, cached, blocked, failure counts, top clients, top domains, top blocked domains), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_query_logs or dns_health_check.

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 the tool is for retrieving aggregated statistics over a time period, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as dns_query_logs for detailed logs. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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