Get rDNS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: read-only API keys are accepted and the call requires the services:read scope, which is exactly the auth detail an agent needs to invoke it successfully.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then the response shape, then the auth requirements. No filler and nothing that a reader would skim past or need to reread.

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 present, the description compensates by describing what the response contains (default vs. customer override per address). Combined with the auth/scopes note and a fully documented single parameter, the picture is nearly complete; only record-count or pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 (orderNo) with 100% schema description coverage, including a format pattern and examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies for a fully documented parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get effective PTR records') plus a precise scope ('every assigned IPv4 and enabled IPv6 address'), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings change_rdns and clear_rdns. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.

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-side counterpart to change_rdns/clear_rdns because it retrieves records rather than modifying them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no prerequisites tying it to a workflow step.

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