list_scanned_dns_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful state trait (records are scan-discovered and pending review), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how the scanned set relates to actual zone records.

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 verb+resource+scope. The trailing sentence "Returns the scanned records." largely restates the opening verb, so it is mild redundancy rather than useful content.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns in a general way but omits the return shape, ordering, and any limit/pagination behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Only one parameter (zone_id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, scope, or qualifier detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List DNS records") and narrows the scope to records discovered by a DNS record scan that are pending review, which distinguishes it from the broader list_dns_records/list_passive_dns siblings. However, it never names those siblings or states the contrast explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 "pending review" implies the tool is used to triage scan-discovered findings before acting on them, which is indirect usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named (e.g., list_dns_records for live records), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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