Dns Resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It appropriately conveys a read-only DNS lookup operation and does not suggest destructive side effects. However, it does not clarify whether a live network query is performed, how failures are presented, or whether the system resolver is used.

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 one compact phrase with no filler; the core action and record-type scope are front-loaded. It is efficient for what it contains, though it is arguably too terse for full operational clarity.

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?

With no annotations and a nearly empty schema, the description is the main source of context. It establishes the domain and record types but omits the input contract and operational caveats. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but invocation details remain unclear.

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 schema contains a single free-form params object with 0% property coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining how to specify the target hostname and record type. It only lists the record types and never states what keys to pass, whether params can be null, or how to select among the types. An agent cannot reliably construct an invocation from this.

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 identifies a specific operation: DNS resolution, further narrowed to A, AAAA, CNAME, and MX records. It is more informative than a bare restatement of the tool name, though it is a noun phrase rather than a full imperative and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The record-type list weakly implies a DNS-lookup use case, but the description never states 'use when a hostname must be resolved' or names any alternative.

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