network_dns_resolve

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

The only behavioral clue is '[SAFE]', implying non-destructiveness, but this is minimal. With no annotations, the description should disclose potential network dependencies, timeouts, or result format. These are absent, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 extremely brief, consisting of a single sentence. While concise, it sacrifices essential information about usage and options, making it less useful than it should be.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the result contains (e.g., IP addresses, records). This is missing. Combined with weak parameter semantics, the description feels incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It mentions 'various record types' but does not list them or explain the hostname format. The enum for 'type' is documented only in the schema, not the description, adding no value.

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 'Resolve a hostname using DNS lookup with support for various record types' clearly states the action (resolve), resource (hostname), and scope (DNS lookup with various record types). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_records and dns_zone_query by focusing on resolution of a specific hostname.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool (e.g., dns_records) would be more appropriate.

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