get_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('queries'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not address potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key details without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes specific examples, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for a tool without annotations. This results in a minimal viable description with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'recordId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('queries') and resource ('configuration of a single DNS record'), and it lists example attributes like record value, priority, and origin authentication setting. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_records' or 'get_certificate', which slightly reduces clarity in context.

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, such as 'list_records' for multiple records or other 'get_' tools for different resources. It mentions that the record ID can be obtained from 'ListRecords', but this is a parameter detail rather than usage context, leaving the agent without explicit when-to-use instructions.

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