Get DNS records for a domain

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description reinforces it with 'it does not change DNS.' It adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations with 'DKIM (when available)', warning that the result set can be partial and the agent should not assume a DKIM record is returned.

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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second disambiguates the mutation risk. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents and flags conditional DKIM availability. It leaves minor gaps — output format and whether records include priority/TTL values — but is otherwise sufficient for a single-parameter read tool.

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 required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the domain argument with an example. The description adds nothing about the domain parameter (e.g. whether it must be an existing account domain), so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns DNS records for a domain) and enumerates the exact record types returned: MX, SPF, DKIM and the verification record. This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings such as get_domain_verification_key and get_domain.

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 'to configure at the registrar' makes the intended scenario explicit — this is the tool for domain DNS setup. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_domain_verification_key alone), which keeps it below a 5.

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