C2 DNS Unmasking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the output categories (dedicated/mixed/shared fidelity, compromised flags) and the underlying reverse-DNS approach. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds actionable guidance on filtering. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, key filters, and output nature. It does not address pagination or edge cases, but these are not critical for a read-only get tool with schema.

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 covers limit and compromised descriptions; description reinforces fidelity filtering and compromised-host flags, giving tactical meaning beyond the enum. Limit's default/max is already in the schema, so no duplication needed.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Reverse-DNS unmasking of C2 beacon infrastructure' and explicitly states what it returns (domains per IP, fidelity, compromised-host flags). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_c2 or get_ioc_dns by focusing on infrastructure fidelity and shared-hosting separation.

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 clear context: 'Answers "what else lives on this C2 infrastructure"' and instructs to 'Filter by fidelity to separate adversary-owned infrastructure from shared hosting.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for choosing this tool.

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