get_dns_record_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it establishes this is a read-style quota report but says nothing about permissions, whether the zone must exist, or freshness/latency of the counts. The 'counts toward plan limits' note is a genuinely useful piece of domain context.

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 tight sentences, scoping condition front-loaded and return content stated second. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, and it does ('current and allowed record counts'). For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; only the exact response shape remains unspecified.

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?

There is a single parameter (zone_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail about the zone identifier, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 record usage) scoped to a Cloudflare zone, and clarifies it reports quota consumption. It is distinguishable from get_dns_record and list_dns_records by the 'usage/counts' framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'counts toward plan limits' implies the tool is for checking quota headroom, but the description never states when to reach for this versus get_dns_settings, list_dns_records, or export_dns_records. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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