Get DNS Record

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

The description states 'Get full details' which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys. It doesn't mention potential errors, pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description is consistent but not enriched—standard for a simple read operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('specific DNS record'), immediately followed by the criterion ('by its record ID'). It contains zero filler and is perfectly sized.

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 get-by-ID tool with two required parameters and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. The absence of an output schema means the phrase 'full details' is somewhat vague, but the tool's simplicity and the sibling set make the expected behavior obvious enough.

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%: both zone_id and record_id have clear descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond repeating the schemas. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource ('full details of a specific DNS record') and the key discriminator ('by its record ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dns_records (which lists records) and get_zone (which retrieves zone details).

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need a single DNS record's full details given its record ID. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately alongside the sibling list/create/update/delete tools.

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