Validate DNS records

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, destructive behavior; the description adds the useful operational context that this contacts actual DNS servers and mutates verification status, plus a concrete rate limit. It stops short of saying whether re-running is safe or how long propagation takes, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, zero waste: the rate-limit caveat is front-loaded and the operational effect follows immediately. Nothing redundant with the title.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the external interaction, and the rate limit. It leaves implicit that a 'confirm' flag gates a destructive-ish effect, but the schema covers that, so coverage is adequate.

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 the 'account' and 'confirm' semantics are already documented in the schema; the description adds no parameter detail, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Triggers a live DNS validation by checking all configured records against actual DNS servers and updates their verification status.' The scope (all configured records, live check, status update) is concrete and an agent can distinguish it from get_dns_status, a read of current status. However, the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Provides a rate limit (20 requests/minute per shop) but no when-to-use guidance: it doesn't say when to trigger validation versus checking get_dns_status, nor what prerequisites must hold before a live check is meaningful. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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