List DNS records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds that filters can be combined and that it targets a single domain, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral nuances like pagination, result limits, or whether the filter is exact match or substring.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filters are stated in one compact sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format doesn't need explanation. Annotations cover safety. The description covers scope and filters adequately for a basic listing tool. However, it leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify the filter parameter names (especially 'type' vs 'record_type'), doesn't mention any limits or pagination, and doesn't specify whether multiple domains can be queried at once (though 'one' suggests not). For a simple tool it's passable but not complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'name, type and value' while the schema uses 'record_type' instead of 'type'. This mismatch could confuse. It does not explain the meaning of each filter (e.g., whether 'name' is a hostname prefix, whether 'value' is IP address, etc.), nor any constraints on combining them. It adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('DNS records'), and the scope ('for one Tophost domain'). It is specific enough to distinguish from list_domains (which lists domains) and get_dns_record (which likely fetches a single record), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It does not mention that it lists all records for a domain while get_dns_record fetches a specific one, or that create/update/delete are for modifications. The only usage note is that filters can be combined, which relates to parameters rather than tool selection.

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