combell_dns_records_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and consistent with the word 'Get'. The description adds only the scoping detail that this returns a single record by ID; it does not describe the return format, error behavior for a missing record, or authentication requirements. Given the annotations carry the safety burden, this is adequate but adds no rich behavioral context beyond scoping.

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?

A single short sentence front-loads the verb and resource. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and no extraneous detail — every word earns its place.

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 2-parameter read-only getter whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the scope and the selection criterion. The only real gap is the undocumented domain_name parameter, which would matter if the tool accepted multiple domain formats.

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?

The schema documents record_id with a genuinely useful pointer to combell_dns_records_list for ID discovery, but domain_name is a bare string with no description in schema or description text. With schema coverage at exactly 50%, the description could have compensated for the undocumented domain_name but does not.

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'), a specific resource ('DNS record of a domain'), and a precise selection criterion ('by record id'). The word 'single' clearly differentiates it from the sibling combell_dns_records_list, and the read semantics separate it from combell_dns_records_create/update/delete.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance appears in the description. The only usage signal is indirect: the record_id schema description says 'see combell_dns_records_list', which implies a list-then-get workflow, but the main description never names alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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