Get Dns Record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' makes clear this is a read operation and not destructive, but no additional behavior is disclosed, such as whether a nonexistent record returns an error or whether permissions are needed. For a simple getter this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. Every word earns its place, and the key selection criteria are stated immediately.

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 simple get-by-ID operation with an output schema already present, the description covers the essential facts: what to retrieve and the identifiers required. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It could have noted a sibling alternative or error behavior, but the operation is simple enough that the description does not leave a major gap.

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 no descriptions for either parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so minimally by relating the parameters to their roles: zone_id and record_id together identify the record. This adds some meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though the names were already fairly self-explanatory.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific DNS record'), and identifies the two identifiers that select the record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_dns_records, but the word 'specific' conveys that this is a single-record fetch, which is enough for an agent to separate it from list/create/update/delete siblings.

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 implies usage when the agent already has a zone ID and record ID and wants one DNS record. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_dns_records, but the 'specific' qualifier and the required IDs make the intended context reasonably inferable.

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