get_domain_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it 'issues nothing,' explains the sibling hand-off, warns that nothing is applied to anyone's DNS automatically, and requires showing the user records and obtaining approval before publishing. It also stresses exact-fidelity printing of returned record strings.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause and packs distinct, non-redundant information into the remaining sentences. It is on the long side, but each sentence carries a distinct constraint (hand-off, exactness, human approval) rather than padding.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it names the ownership-check record, the DMARC reporting record, and the observed-publication flag. Combined with the read-only and approval constraints, an agent has everything needed to call and act on it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, and the schema already documents the accepted domain forms and the not-found/ownership-non-disclosure behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 (Read) and resource (the records a monitored domain still needs), then enumerates the two record classes it returns: the ownership check while unverified and, once verified, the DMARC reporting record plus its observed-publication status. It is clearly separable from siblings like check_domain_verification, which it explicitly says issues the record rather than reading it.

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?

Gives an explicit conditional routing rule: if a verified domain comes back with no reporting record, call check_domain_verification once, because that tool issues it. It also states the human-approval prerequisite before any DNS tool is used, so both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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