DNS History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable detail about paginated snapshots and supported record types, complementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds key details. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld) and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the output (paginated historical records) and supported types. No gaps for a historical lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions hostname and record types but adds no new parameter-level insight beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., enum values for record_types are already listed).

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 'Retrieve historical DNS records for a hostname,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup (which likely returns current records) and dns_bulk_lookup (bulk operation).

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 context on pagination and supported record types, implying it's for historical data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_lookup, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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