regru_get_domain_dns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, but there is no mention of permission requirements, whether the domain must be registered/served by the account, or what the response contains (e.g. a list of NS hostnames).

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only blemish is the inaccurate abbreviation 'NSS' for name servers, which could momentarily confuse an agent.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but omits the return shape (NS hostname list) and any prerequisite about the domain being managed in the account. The absence of an output schema makes documenting the return value more valuable here.

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_name parameter, so the schema already documents the input; the description adds no format or naming details. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('DNS name servers for a domain'), so the agent knows exactly what is retrieved. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling regru_get_dns_records, which plausibly returns the same or overlapping data, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus regru_get_dns_records or regru_update_domain_dns. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the NS-only lookup or a superset.

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