DNS lookup

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that it queries public DNS-over-HTTPS resolvers and listing the default record types. This is consistent with the read-only, idempotent, open-world annotations and helps the agent understand the external nature of the lookup.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main operation is front-loaded, and the default behavior plus resolver detail are included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple two-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. There is no output schema or mention of result formatting, but the return concept of 'DNS records' is clear enough for an agent to proceed.

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 documents both parameters fully, but the description adds value by specifying the default record types fetched when no types array is provided and confirming that an IP triggers a reverse lookup. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 identifies the resource (DNS records) and the dual mode of operation: forward lookup for a domain or reverse PTR lookup for an IP. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like dnsrecon_domain_scan, but the purpose is specific and understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as dnsrecon_domain_scan, whois_lookup, or subfinder_subdomain_search. The description implies a simple direct DNS lookup, but it does not state when not to use it or which sibling covers broader reconnaissance.

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