Get DNS zone diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that: it states the auth requirement (dns:read with an API key) and clarifies the tool performs live external-facing checks (public SOA, delegation), consistent with openWorldHint. No rate limits or caching/freshness behavior are disclosed.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the action and the check list, plus the permission requirement tacked on last. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 usefully enumerates the diagnostic categories the agent can expect back and notes the permission requirement. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; only the exact response shape and any latency/external-dependency caveats are left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter (zone_id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add syntax, format, or sourcing detail for zone_id, making this the baseline 3 where the schema carries the load.

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 (Run) and resource (DNS health diagnostics) and enumerates the checks performed — delegation, public SOA, DNSSEC signal, record hygiene — so an agent can distinguish it from get_dns_zone or verify_dns_zone by content. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it contrasts with, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'customer-facing DNS health diagnostics' framing implies a diagnostic (read-only inspection) use case, and the description states the required permission 'dns:read when using an API key', which is useful gating context. However, it never says when to prefer this over verify_dns_zone, reapply_dns_zone, or get_dns_zone, leaving selection to inference.

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