List domain glue records

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 real value beyond annotations by disclosing the required authorization scope (domains:read with an API key) and clarifying the record shape returned.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a clarifying example and the auth prerequisite. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, return shape example, and auth requirement. Only pagination or result-ordering behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (domain_id) is fully documented in the schema as an owned domain ID from list_domains. The description's phrase 'for an owned domain' restates this rather than adding new meaning, so the 3 baseline 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 (List) and resource (same-domain nameserver IP records / glue records) and disambiguates with a concrete example, 'ns1.example.com -> 203.0.113.10'. An agent can distinguish this from create_domain_glue_record / delete_domain_glue_record without opening schemas.

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?

Scopes usage to 'an owned domain' and discloses the required scope ('domains:read when using an API key'), which is meaningful qualifying context. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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