get_domain_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is read-only, registrar-dependent, and may return a 'not-implemented error' when the registrar lacks a DNS API. This transparency about error conditions and constraints is comprehensive.

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 concise, at 54 words, and front-loads the primary action and scope. Every sentence adds value: the verb 'Get', the resource 'DNS host records', limitations, and parameter source.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, its limitations (registrar dependency), its read-only nature, and the parameter's origin. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use 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 only parameter 'id' has a schema description (Domain id from list_domains) and is reinforced by the description. Since schema coverage is 100%, additional semantic value is minimal, but the connection to list_domains is useful context.

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 retrieves DNS host records (A, CNAME, MX, TXT) for an owned domain. It distinguishes itself from write operations by explicitly noting that replacing records is not exposed as an MCP tool, and it differentiates from similar read tools like get_domain by focusing on DNS entries.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use to read the domain's current records' and warns that writing is not available. It also specifies that the required 'id' comes from list_domains, setting clear context for when to use this tool versus others.

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