get_dns_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates read-only intent ('Get metadata') and discloses access requirements and the authentication prerequisite. The note about a session opening the tool after start_login adds useful operational behavior beyond the bare function name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential access instructions in a separate clearly marked section. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it states what metadata is returned, names the included components, and gives the necessary authentication steps. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters that need explanation. The description also mentions returned credential fields, which indirectly informs what the tool provides even though it does not need to document parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('metadata for all supported DNS providers'), and clarifies exactly what is returned: credential fields and documentation links. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect_dns_provider or list_dns_credentials.

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 gives clear prerequisite context: a Proof account is needed, and it explains two ways to authenticate (set PROOF_API_KEY or sign in via start_login). It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but for a zero-parameter metadata list, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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