get_mx_records

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states it returns a formatted string containing MX records. It does not disclose any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or the number of records 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?

The description is very concise: a one-line purpose followed by a docstring-style args/returns. It front-loads the core purpose effectively, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 DNS lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the return format but does not mention potential queries (e.g., only MX records) or error cases.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'domain' with no description. The description adds an example (e.g., example.com) and clarifies it's the domain name to query, which adds basic meaning but lacks further format constraints or validation details.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'MX (mail) records for a domain'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_a_records or get_cname_records by specifying MX records.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_domain for other DNS records). The description lacks context on when it's appropriate to call this tool instead of others.

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