retrieve_ptr_records_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/dns/ptrs) and the customer/IPs precondition, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or return shape.

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?

Very short, but it wastes space on redundancy: 'List PTR records' is immediately restated as 'Get a list of all PTR records', and the bracketed endpoint path is developer-facing noise. The one non-obvious constraint (customer or IPs required) is buried at the end rather than front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition but leaves pagination (page/size), search and orderBy behavior, and the response shape entirely to the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps for a fairly wide parameter surface.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new information: the schema marks zero required parameters, while the description states that either a customer or a list of IPs must be supplied. That constraint is not derivable from the schema alone and materially affects how the agent fills in customerId or ips.

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 and resource ('List PTR records') and adds scoping context that distinguishes it from the singular retrieve_ptr_record sibling. The awkward grammar ('either customer or a list of IPs is required') muddies the sentence but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 clause about needing a customer or a list of IPs implies a precondition for use, but it is not framed as explicit when-to-use guidance and there is no mention of alternatives such as retrieve_ptr_record for a single record. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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