IT Tools MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (implying potential side effects) but no other behavioral hints. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations—it doesn't specify what 'DNS lookup' entails (e.g., query types, recursive vs. iterative, timeout behavior, or output format). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, and for a simple lookup tool, the description is somewhat adequate given the annotations cover basic safety.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Perform DNS lookup on a hostname or IP address'. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. With annotations providing some safety info, it's adequate for a simple lookup tool, though more context would improve agent understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'target' parameter clearly documented as 'Hostname or IP address'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides sufficient parameter information.

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 action ('Perform DNS lookup') and the target ('on a hostname or IP address'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dig' or 'ping' by specifying DNS lookup, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dig' which also performs DNS queries. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dig' (a sibling tool) or other network diagnostic tools. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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