check_nameservers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs network operations.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves network data. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., list of nameservers, error responses) or address potential complexities like handling invalid domains or network timeouts, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'domain' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify edge cases or provide examples beyond the schema's 'e.g. example.com'), so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('nameserver (NS) records for a domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'dns_lookup' or 'resolve_all', which might also retrieve DNS-related data, so it misses the highest score for sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dns_lookup' or 'whois' from the sibling list. It lacks context about specific use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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