search_dns

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

With no annotations, the description provides some transparency: it enumerates specific DNS record types and checks email security misconfigurations, and states it's passive and public-source. However, it lacks details on rate limits, execution time, or output format for non-JSON responses.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, specific features, and usage constraints. It is well-structured but could be slightly streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the main functionality (DNS enumeration and email security checks) and usage context. It does not detail output format for default mode or error handling, but covers essential information for a reconnaissance tool.

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 50% (domain lacks description, json_output has). The description adds context for the domain parameter by explaining the DNS record types enumerated, but does not explicitly describe the parameter itself. The json_output parameter is already covered in schema.

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 'Comprehensive DNS record enumeration' and lists specific record types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover other data sources like IP reputation or whois.

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 mentions it's passive, public-source, and authorized use only, implying use for initial reconnaissance without credentials. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or specify when to prefer this over alternatives.

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