Get DNS record

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the [READ] tag is largely redundant. What the description does add beyond structured data is the anti-hallucination rule for record_id and the exact upstream endpoint, which is genuinely useful for an agent. It omits error behavior (e.g., what happens on an unknown id), keeping it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the endpoint and the id-sourcing caveat. Every sentence carries actionable information for the caller.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the upstream endpoint, and the id prerequisite. It leaves a small gap by not characterizing the returned record fields (relevant since no output schema exists) and by not explaining the domain parameter.

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 50%: record_id is documented in the schema, while domain carries only a pattern and no description. The description adds sourcing guidance for record_id ("obtain from list_dns_records") but says nothing about what domain means or how it relates to the record_id. With half the parameters undocumented, the description only partially compensates.

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?

"Get one DNS record by id" states a specific verb (get), resource (DNS record), and scope (single record by id), which cleanly separates it from list_dns_records, update_dns_record, and delete_dns_record. The [READ] tag and the concrete REST endpoint (GET /cdn/4.0/domains/{domain}/dns-records/{id}) reinforce the operation and its cardinality.

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 gives a clear prerequisite and names the sibling that supplies it: "Never invent record_id — obtain from list_dns_records." That tells the agent when this tool is callable and how to prepare for it. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over list_dns_records for retrieval, but the by-id framing implies that condition.

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