dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying mechanism (Cloudflare DoH) and 'fraud-signal style flags', but it does not describe the return format, whether it makes network calls, any rate limits, or what the flags mean and how to interpret them. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise: a single sentence that packs purpose, mechanism, and a key usage caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a single, well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and one usage restriction. However, the absence of an output schema and lack of explanation about the 'fraud-signal style flags' leave an agent uncertain about the result structure and interpretation, making completeness only partial.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (domain), providing basic semantics like 'Domain name (e.g. example.com)'. The description adds the DNS-specific context but does not provide additional syntax, formats, or edge cases beyond what the schema already states. At 100% coverage, a 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'DNS A/AAAA/MX/NS summary via 54ch10 (Cloudflare DoH)'. This identifies the specific resource (DNS) and typical record types, distinguishing it from siblings like whois or tls that serve different functions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with whois or other related tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this over a more general DNS lookup.

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 phrase 'Analytics-only — not clearance' gives context on intended usage and explicitly states it is not for clearance decisions. This provides a partial guideline, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like whois or tls, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond the analytics-only caveat.

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