Get DNS zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the dns:read API-key scope requirement and the conditional behavior that the verification value is only present 'when recoverable' — genuinely useful operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then two dense but purpose-driven sentences on downstream use and verification handling. Slightly packed with dotted paths (zone.verification.record.value) but every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value information, and it does describe the key returned artifacts (record IDs, the ownership TXT value path) plus the auth requirement. It does not sketch the overall zone object shape, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (zone_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a DNS zone and desired records') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by naming the record IDs it supplies for update_dns_record. An agent can tell it apart from list_dns_zones and get_dns_zone_diagnostics without opening any schema.

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?

Gives real when-to-use routing: read the ownership TXT value before considering reissue_dns_zone_verification, and use this output as the source of record IDs for update_dns_record. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it versus list_dns_zones, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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