Get DNSSEC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the dns:read permission requirement when using an API key, and that it returns public key material (DNSKEY/DS) rather than private data.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the return content is front-loaded before the permission note.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description names the returned material (DNSSEC state, DNSKEY/DS) and the auth requirement. It could be slightly more explicit about the shape of the returned state, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents zone_id. The description only implies the zone scope ('for a native DNS zone') without adding format or constraint details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (DNSSEC state, DNSKEY/DS material) scoped to a native DNS zone. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_dnssec (mutation) and get_dns_zone (general zone read).

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the read path for DNSSEC, vs set_dnssec for writes. There is no explicit 'use this when...' or routing to an alternative for related DNSSEC inspection needs.

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