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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: data is fetched live from Plesk, each row is prefixed with the identifier, and IDs are reassigned on create/delete, which affects correct usage.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, output shape, then the instability caveat that drives correct timing. No filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description discloses the key structural fact (rows are prefixed with the record identifier) and a critical timing constraint. It stops short of describing all returned fields or pagination, but covers what an agent needs to pair this with the delete tool.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents it (with an example format). The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints, so this lands at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb (abrufen) and resource (DNS-Zone-Records einer Domain) and scopes it as a live read from Plesk. It also positions itself relative to the sibling delete_dns_record by explaining which value feeds that tool's record_id, so an agent can distinguish it from get_dns_security or add_dns_record.

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?

Gives a clear operational rule: fetch fresh immediately before deleting because identifiers are not stable. That is strong context-specific guidance, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over other DNS-related siblings.

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