Domain DNS

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

Annotations declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and the description's 'GET' is fully consistent with them. Beyond annotations, it discloses that output carries fraud-signal style flags and that the tool is analytics-only, adding useful behavioral context about result shape and intended use. No contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences, roughly 40 words, front-loaded with the GET endpoint and core function, followed by the usage workflow and a one-word purpose qualifier. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted language.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool backed by full safety annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the recommended workflow, and output style. It stops short of detailing the return payload format (no output schema exists), but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 clear description and example for the single domain parameter ('Domain name without path. Example: example.com'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'after url.open' weakly implies the input flows from a prior open step, but it otherwise adds no parameter detail — the baseline 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 'summarize' with a clear resource — DNS A/AAAA/MX/NS records for a domain — and adds the distinctive 'fraud-signal style flags' output. It is scoped to a single domain, which the title 'Domain DNS' reinforces. However, it never explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'dns' tool, leaving the agent to infer the domain-scoping distinction.

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?

Provides workflow context — instructs composing with domain.whois/domain.tls for full domain hygiene after url.open, and stamps 'Analytics-only.' But it never names 'dns', its closest sibling alternative, nor states when domain.dns should be preferred over it. Context is present but exclusions and direct alternative routing are absent.

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