resolve_dns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does make the read-only lookup nature clear and enumerates record types, but it does not disclose behavior for missing records, invalid hostnames, or the exact shape of results. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence contains the action, resource, supported record types, and scope with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter DNS lookup tool with no siblings, the description covers the operation and supported record types. Without an output schema, additional detail about empty results or error cases would be slightly helpful, but the definition is largely complete for its complexity.

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 100% and the only parameter, hostname, has its own description. The tool description adds 'any host' and record-type context but no meaningful parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully schema-documented parameters.

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 and resource: 'Resolve DNS records' and explicitly lists the supported record types. It is immediately clear what action is performed on what target, and there are no sibling tools causing ambiguity.

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?

'For any host' provides clear usage context, indicating this is a general-purpose DNS lookup tool. There are no sibling tools or alternatives to contrast, so the absence of an explicit exclusion clause is not a significant gap.

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