List DNS records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value lies in explaining the filtering behavior, especially the requirement that name filtering requires a record_type. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose and key constraint without wasted words. Front-loaded verb 'List' immediately conveys the action.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers the core operation, filters, and the coupling between parameters, leaving no significant 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?

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic constraint that 'name' filtering requires 'record_type', which is not fully explicit in the schema alone. This enriches understanding of how parameters interact.

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 action ('List DNS records') and its scope ('for a domain'), with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools that add, replace, delete, or check availability, because none of those perform listing.

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 makes evident this is a read-only listing tool, and the sibling set clarifies alternatives (mutations and availability check). It doesn't explicitly state 'use this instead of X', but the context is clear enough.

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