domains_dns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so by stating 'Read-only' upfront. It also explains the dependency on a prior domains_list call and optional filtering. It does not mention error behavior or response format, but for a read-only inspection tool the safety profile is adequately 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and read-only behavior; the second gives the prerequisite and optional filters. Every clause earns its place and the critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, the required input source, and the optional filters. Without an output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return value, but 'Inspect DNS records' sufficiently implies a list of DNS records. Minor missing details like whether results are paginated or include TTL values are not critical for calling this simple tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent that the resourceId should come from domains_list and giving concrete examples of record types (A, CNAME). This enriches parameter understanding without just repeating schema labels.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' with the resource 'DNS records' and the target 'domain resource', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like domains_list, domains_check_availability, or domains_get_quote. It also immediately signals the read-only nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit usage context: it tells the agent to use the resource id from domains_list and explains optional filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling set, the intended use case is obvious and no other sibling overlaps with DNS record inspection.

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