Validate DNS records

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description usefully reinforces this by stating it contacts actual external DNS servers and updates verification status. It also adds a concrete operational constraint the annotations lack: a 20 requests/minute per shop rate limit. It could go further on failure semantics, but against existing annotations this is solid added context.

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?

Two compact sentences with no waste. The rate-limit disclaimer is front-loaded ahead of the functional sentence, which is slightly unfortunate for an agent skimming for purpose, but the overall footprint is tight and earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs: what it does, that it touches live external servers, that it mutates state, and a rate limit. For a two-param tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both 'account' and 'confirm' are already well documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about them. That makes the baseline 3 appropriate — the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('triggers a live DNS validation') and resource ('all configured records'), plus the side effect ('updates their verification status'). This clearly reads as a mutation, distinguishing it in spirit from the read-only get_dns_status sibling, but it never names that sibling the way a 5 would.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is the tool for re-checking records live, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. get_dns_status for reading the current state). The rate-limit note constrains cadence but is not routing guidance.

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