umbrella_domain_resource_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and specifies the resource type, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about operational nuances.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should explain return values and operational context. It does not mention what the response looks like (e.g., a list of records), nor does it provide any usage context. The description is adequate only for a trivial understanding of the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'for a domain', clarifying that the 'domain' parameter is the domain being queried. However, it lacks details such as expected format (e.g., bare domain vs. protocol), any constraints, or examples. Since there is only one simple parameter, the minimal clarification is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a specific action (Get) on a specific resource (passive DNS resource records) with a clear context (historical DNS resolutions for a domain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like umbrella_domain_categorization or umbrella_domain_risk_score, which serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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