get_txt_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authorization requirements, or potential side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for this gap.

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, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and parameters in a single line plus arg documentation.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects but lacks details on the return format and error handling. It is adequate but not fully 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?

Schema_description_coverage is 0%, but the description adds an example for the domain parameter, clarifying its usage. However, it does not elaborate on format or constraints beyond the schema type, achieving only a baseline level of added meaning.

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 tool gets TXT records for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_a_records which handle other record types.

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 description does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies DNS TXT record retrieval, no guidance on exclusions or comparisons with siblings is given.

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