Get DNS Records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses which record types come back and, importantly, that `dkim` and `verification` are null when not applicable — a behavioral detail an agent would otherwise have to discover from a failed lookup.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the null-semantics caveat. Nothing is repeated from the title and no wording is wasted.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to frame purpose and unusual return cases — both done. It stops short of noting whether records are generated by MXroute or read live from DNS, which would be the last useful detail for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 `domain` parameter with 100% schema description coverage including format constraints, so the schema does the work. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it — 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 and resource ('Returns the DNS records') and enumerates exactly what is included: MX plus SPF, DKIM, and verification TXT records. The stated purpose ('to configure at the domain's registrar for MXroute mail delivery') makes it unmistakably different from siblings like get_domain or get_verification_key.

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 phrase 'to configure at the domain's registrar for MXroute mail delivery' implies the setup context in which this should be called, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. must the domain already exist / have mail hosting set?), and no routing to alternatives such as get_verification_key for the verification record alone.

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