dns_discovery

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

The description indicates the tool is a read-only DNS lookup plus registry cross-check and notes it is 'Free,' hinting at no cost. However, without annotations, it fails to explicitly state that no modifications are made, or to mention potential delays or error conditions.

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-load the core purpose and add operational detail without any redundant or extraneous 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?

The description covers the tool's action and context but omits the output format (boolean or text) and possible error scenarios. Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally clarify what the agent receives as a result.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'domain' parameter, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the exact TXT record format (_agentstamp.domain.com) and the cross-registry check, enriching the parameter's purpose beyond the schema definition.

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 checks for an AgentStamp DNS TXT record on a domain, with a specific resource (_agentstamp.domain.com) and action (verify and cross-check). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on trust, reputation, or browsing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trust_check or verify_stamp. The description does not mention prerequisites, complementary tools, or scenarios where this check is the best choice.

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