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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the authentication prerequisite: a Proof account is needed, and the first call may open a session that requires start_login followed by a retry. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 blocks: the capability statement first, then the access prerequisite. Both earn their place, though the auth note is slightly verbose and could be tighter without losing meaning.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description supplies everything remaining: what is returned (provider metadata, credential fields, doc links) and the auth flow required to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify further. No parameter-level claims are made or needed.

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 (Get) and resource (metadata for all supported DNS providers) and enumerates the payload (required credential fields, documentation links). This clearly separates it from siblings like connect_dns_provider, create_dns_credential, and list_dns_credentials, which act on credentials rather than provider metadata.

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 ACCESS paragraph gives real procedural guidance (Proof account required, authenticate via /mcp or start_login, then retry), but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_dns_credentials or connect_dns_provider. Usage is only implied via the 'required credential fields' payload.

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