dnssec_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavior, such as relying on a known-validating resolver's AD bit and comparing plain DNS against encrypted transports. However, it does not explicitly state that live network queries are sent or describe potential side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 short and the first sentence front-loads the main purpose. The transport fragment is slightly awkwardly embedded in the description rather than formatted as a parameter note, but there is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 three-parameter network check with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and the key transport decision. It omits caveats like resolver prerequisites or explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling tool list and output schema supply much of the remaining 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 adds meaningful detail for 'transport' (plain/dot/doh and interception rationale) and loosely implies 'hostname' via 'a name' and 'resolver' via 'known-validating resolver.' It does not provide explicit per-parameter explanations, but the essential meaning of all parameters is inferable.

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 states a specific action ('Check') and resource ('whether a name validates DNSSEC') and adds the AD-bit criterion, which clearly separates it from the sibling dns_lookup. This is not a tautology or vague restatement of the tool name.

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 gives a concrete usage context: choose plain DNS vs. dot/doh 'when port 53 may be intercepted.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the transport comparison provides clear situational guidance.

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