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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic query action and gives no details on error handling, partial failures, rate limits, return format, or whether any restrictions apply. For a bulk tool, this lack of transparency about per-domain behavior is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Although the tool is relatively simple, the description omits crucial context for a bulk operation: what the response structure looks like, how errors are handled if some queries fail, and whether all record types are supported. With no output schema and no annotations, this brevity leaves the agent under-informed.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, such as accepted record_types values or resolver format. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not surpass that.

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 ('Query'), the resource ('DNS records'), and the scope ('for multiple domains in one call'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like dns_lookup (single domain) and dns_reverse (reverse lookups).

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 implies batch usage ('multiple domains in one call') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., for single-domain lookups use dns_lookup). The sibling tool names are not referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds 'Supports all record types including DNSSEC', which is a capability, not deep behavioral disclosure. It does not explain network behavior, resolver defaults (though the schema does), rate limits, or the format of returned data, leaving gaps for a first-time agent.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences—and gets straight to the point. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is simple and the schema is rich, but without an output schema, the description should clarify what the query returns. It also does not mention when to use this instead of bulk or reverse variants. The description is adequate but not fully complete for the context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, thus failing to enhance the semantic understanding of the 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 ('Query') and resource ('DNS records for a domain'), clearly stating the tool's main function. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_reverse and dns_bulk by emphasizing forward lookups and support for all record types including DNSSEC.

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. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions for use. The only implied usage is for querying DNS records, but no explicit 'when' or 'when not' is stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the response format is, or any potential side effects. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer 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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. However, it is so brief that it omits helpful details that could be included without sacrificing conciseness.

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 DNS tool with no output schema or annotations, the description should at least explain what a reverse DNS lookup returns (e.g., PTR record, hostname). It does not, leaving the agent without context about the expected result or error conditions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the tool name and schema, providing minimal complementary 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 tool performs a reverse DNS lookup (PTR) for an IP address, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling dns_reverse_bulk by indicating single IP, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus dns_lookup, dns_bulk, or dns_reverse_bulk. The context of 'an IP address' implies single-lookup use, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action ('reverse DNS lookup') without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, response format, rate limits, or error handling. This lack of detail is insufficient for a tool that may have side effects or edge cases.

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 short sentence (6 words) that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without wasting tokens or confusing the reader.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It lacks information about what the response contains (e.g., results per IP, errors) and any operational constraints. While the core purpose is clear, the absence of such context makes it minimally viable but not robust.

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 description coverage is 100%: the 'ips' parameter is described as a list of IPv4/IPv6 addresses, and 'resolver' as an optional DNS resolver IP. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No gap to compensate for.

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 ('lookup') and names the resource ('reverse DNS') plus a clear scope ('multiple IP addresses'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_reverse (likely single IP) and dns_lookup (possibly forward lookup), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context: use when you need reverse DNS for many IPs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., dns_reverse for a single IP, dns_bulk for forward bulk lookups) or provide any exclusions. Sibling tools exist but are not mentioned, so guidance is only inferred.

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