resolve_dns_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that resolution is live (not cached), enumerates the record types returned, and notes the Node.js native resolver, which implies unsupported types like AAAA/CNAME are out of scope. It says nothing about failure behavior for nonexistent domains, timeouts, or the shape of results.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb, record types, and implementation detail in that order. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what a response looks like (e.g., record arrays), whether lookups fail softly or raise on NXDOMAIN, or how the 'live' behavior affects repeated calls.

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?

There is a single 'domain' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the phrase 'for any domain', which conveys scope but no format, subdomain, or IDN handling details. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

Specific verb (resolves) plus resource (live DNS records), with the supported record types (A, NS, MX, TXT) and scope (any domain) spelled out. It is self-evidently distinct from check_domain_availability, though it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. There is a nearby sibling (check_domain_availability) and no hint about when DNS resolution is the right call versus a simple availability check.

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