retrieve_record_audits_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are a filterable change history plus the endpoint path; it says nothing about pagination defaults, ordering behavior when orderBy is omitted, or how far back history is retained.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and purpose. The second sentence largely restates the first ('List history about your DNS Records' vs 'List and filter the history of changes'), a small redundancy, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 list tool with fully documented schema and complete annotations, the essentials are present. Still missing is any guidance on default sort/page size behavior or how the filters combine, which matters given nine optional parameters and no output schema.

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% with 9 well-documented optional parameters, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description mentions filtering generally but adds no details on the date-range pairing (startDate/endDate) or the orderBy syntax beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing/filtering the change history of DNS Records, with the endpoint path included. It is distinguishable from retrieve_dns_zone_records_list (the records themselves) and retrieve_dns_audits_list (zone-level audits), though it never explicitly names those siblings to make the boundary obvious.

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 'List and filter the history of changes' implies the audit-inspection use case, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over retrieve_dns_audits_list or retain_dns_zone_records_list, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and path.

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