dns_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth dependency (CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN) and an important scope trait — that the IP search spans all zones rather than one — which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about result limits, pagination, or how many zones/records are walked, so for an unannotated read tool the behavioral picture is only partially drawn.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that keeps the resource first and the query modes second, with a compact example. Zero filler, though the em-dash construction is slightly compressed and the implied verb ('list/find') never appears explicitly.

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 3-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool the description covers the essentials: resource, auth, the two query modes, and cross-zone scope. Missing is anything about return shape (list of records), pagination/limits, and interaction between 'name' and 'ip' when both are supplied, which an agent needs to invoke it confidently.

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 67%, so the schema already explains 'ip' and 'name'; the description mainly restates 'by name' and 'record that points at an IP'. Its real added value is the 'across all zones' scope note for the IP query, which the schema's one-line 'every record with this content' does not convey. The 'type' param and its 'any' default go unaddressed in both places.

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 names the resource (DNS records in Cloudflare) and specifies the two query modes — resolving a name, or finding every record pointing at an IP across all zones. That is a clear, retrievable purpose an agent can act on. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dns_change, which mutates DNS records, so sibling differentiation relies on inference.

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 two query modes (by name / by IP) are stated with a concrete example ('everything still on an old ingress address'), which implies when to reach for the IP mode. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for modification (dns_change) if the agent actually wants to change rather than read.

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