list_dns_credentials

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description is consistent with a pure read. Beyond the annotations, it adds two substantive facts: the returned data is credential metadata and not secret values (important for an agent worried about leaking secrets), and the call requires an authenticated Proof account with PROOF_API_KEY or a session from start_login. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but with an output schema present that is a minor 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?

Two short paragraphs: purpose and return scope first, then access prerequisites. Front-loaded and free of filler. The access paragraph is slightly verbose in restating the restart requirement, but it earns its place by preventing a predictable auth failure.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (metadata, not secrets), and the authentication prerequisite. The remaining omission is whether the list is paginated or bounded, which the output schema may already answer.

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 there is no parameter meaning to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly describes a global, unfiltered listing, which matches the empty input 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 and resource: 'List all stored DNS provider credentials for the authenticated account.' The scope ('all', 'for the authenticated account') is explicit, so it is distinguishable from create_dns_credential and delete_dns_credential. It does not name or contrast with sibling list/read tools like get_dns_providers or check_domain_credentials, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List all stored DNS provider credentials' — the agent can infer this is the read/inspect operation — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer get_dns_providers, check_domain_credentials, or verify_domain_with_credentials instead. The ACCESS section usefully tells the agent to call start_login first if unauthenticated, which is a real routing hint.

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