Keel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying library ('dnspython') and supported record types, but does not cover critical behaviors such as error handling, performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and supported record types. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, error handling, and output format, which are essential for effective tool invocation. The supported record types list is helpful but insufficient for full context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by listing supported record types (e.g., 'A, AAAA, MX, CNAME, TXT, NS'), which clarifies the 'record_type' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'domain' or 'nameserver' parameters, leaving them undocumented. The baseline is 3 due to some added value but incomplete coverage.

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's purpose: 'Resolve DNS records for a domain using dnspython.' It specifies the verb ('Resolve'), resource ('DNS records'), and technology ('dnspython'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dns_propagation' or 'reverse_dns', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists supported record types but does not mention when to choose this over sibling tools like 'dns_propagation' or 'reverse_dns', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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