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 explicitly states 'Changes nothing,' which clearly signals a read-only operation and prevents an agent from expecting mutation. It also adds the nuance that the records are the registrar's current holdings. It does not discuss permissions or failure modes, but for a simple read-only lookup this is solid transparency.

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 short sentences deliver the object, scope, and side-effect profile with zero filler. The key information is front-loaded, and the explicit 'Changes nothing' earns its place as a crucial behavioral clarification.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what data is returned, the domain scope, and that no changes are made. It does not describe the return format, but 'DNS records' is sufficiently informative for an agent to know what to expect, and the schema covers the parameters.

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%, with both `domain` and `workspace` already described meaningfully. The description does not need to add much, and it provides only general context about domains Boathouse bought or manages rather than new parameter-level syntax or constraints. This matches the baseline expected when the schema already documents all 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 clearly identifies the resource (DNS records held by the registrar) and the scope (domains Boathouse bought or manages), and even states the operation's side-effect profile with 'Changes nothing.' It distinguishes itself from domain_* siblings like domain_buy or domain_repoint by focusing on current registrar-held DNS records rather than actions on domains.

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 when to use the tool: when you need the DNS records currently held by the registrar for a Boathouse-owned or managed domain. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implicit rather than directive.

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