Passive DNS Enrichment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by specifying the return payload (DNS history, reverse lookups, infrastructure) and the no-data behavior (returns {known: false} instead of error), which is not captured in 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?

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by key behavioral 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, simple behavior) and complete annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the return type and edge case (no data). Without an output schema, more detail about the response structure could be useful, but this is sufficient.

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% for the only parameter (ioc_value). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides ('IOC value to look up (IP address, domain, or URL)'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves passive DNS enrichment data for a specific IOC value (IP, domain, or URL). It specifies the type of data returned (DNS resolution history, reverse lookups, infrastructure mapping), making purpose distinct from sibling tools like enrich_iocs or get_ioc_intelligence.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to get passive DNS data for an IOC) and even explains the behavior when no data is found. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, which would have improved guidance.

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