Keel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: parallel querying of specific resolvers (Google, Cloudflare, OpenDNS, Quad9, system default), inconsistency highlighting, and supported record types. However, it doesn't mention error handling, timeout behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are important for a network tool.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sentences add crucial details (specific resolvers, inconsistency detection, record types). Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it immediately understandable.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good basic coverage of purpose and behavior. However, it lacks information about return format (what 'highlights inconsistencies' means structurally), error conditions, and performance characteristics that would be important for network diagnostics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It provides essential context: the tool checks DNS propagation (clarifying the 'domain' parameter purpose) and lists supported record types (explaining 'record_type' options beyond the default 'A'). However, it doesn't specify domain format requirements or record type constraints.

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 specific action ('Check DNS propagation across multiple public resolvers') and resource (DNS records for a domain). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' by emphasizing parallel queries across multiple resolvers and inconsistency detection, which is unique functionality not implied by other DNS-related tools.

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 clear context for when to use this tool - checking DNS propagation across multiple resolvers with inconsistency detection. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'dns_lookup' for single-resolver queries, which would be helpful given the sibling tools list.

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