audit_dns

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing specific behaviors: resolving various record types, detecting CDN provider, and checking email/certificate security. This provides richer behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('DNS and infrastructure analysis'). Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 complexity (multiple record types, CDN detection, security checks) and absence of an output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format or what the agent can expect. It currently lacks output details, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'url' described as 'The URL to audit'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 tool performs 'DNS and infrastructure analysis' and lists specific record types (A/AAAA/CNAME/MX/NS/TXT) and checks (CDN, SPF/DMARC/CAA). This distinguishes it from sibling audit tools focused on other areas like security, SSL, or headers.

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 context ('DNS and infrastructure analysis') and notes 'No source code needed', implying passive analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_security or audit_ssl, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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