get_dns_providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the return content (credential fields, doc links) and the authentication requirement with two concrete paths (env var + restart, or start_login). The 'a session opens this tool' phrasing is slightly confusing but the auth behavior is disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the access prerequisite follows. No filler, though the second sentence's clause about a session opening the tool is a bit awkwardly worded.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so ('required credential fields and documentation links'). For a zero-param read-only tool this is largely sufficient; only the sibling routing is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless enumeration of all providers, adding nothing that conflicts with the empty schema.

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+resource ('Get metadata for all supported DNS providers') and specifies the payload ('required credential fields and documentation links'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like connect_dns_provider or create_dns_credential, though it never names an alternative 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 ACCESS paragraph gives a real prerequisite (a Proof account, via PROOF_API_KEY or start_login), which is genuine usage context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over connect_dns_provider/connect_cloudflare/connect_godaddy or that it is the discovery step preceding them, leaving the routing implicit.

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