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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the ownership requirement, which is a behavioral constraint, but does not disclose return format, errors, or what counts as 'owned'. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that states exactly what the tool does. There is no wasted wording or redundant repetition of the title, making it maximally concise.

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 tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is minimal but workable. However, without an output schema and with no mention of return values, errors for unauthorized domains, or the structure of 'records', the agent may not fully know what to expect. The simplicity helps, but the description leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, with only minLength on the 'domain' property. The description mentions '.ton domain' but does not specify whether the parameter should include the TLD, case sensitivity, or other formatting details. The parameter semantics are largely left to the agent's inference, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Read') and resource ('DNS records for an owned .ton domain'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dns.lookup (likely generic) and domains.list (lists domains). It provides a precise scope with the ownership qualifier.

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 phrase 'for an owned .ton domain' clearly signals when to use this tool (you must own the domain). It implies differences from dns.lookup, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear; only an explicit 'use instead' is missing.

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