get_domain_records

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral context: records must be printed exactly as returned and never rewritten, and no DNS changes are applied by this tool. It also clarifies that a human publishes records and approval is required before proceeding, which is important operational behavior not visible from annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose, confirms read-only behavior, mandates exact output fidelity, and clearly explains the human-approval workflow. There is no fluff or repetition beyond the harmless restatement of 'Read-only'.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies exactly what records are returned, states the output fidelity requirement, and explains the surrounding workflow. An agent could select and invoke this tool correctly without any additional context.

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 covers the single parameter 'domain' thoroughly, including what values are valid and refusal behavior. The description adds contextual framing ('the user monitors', 'still needs') but no additional parameter syntax or format details, so it neither improves nor harms what the schema already supplies.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly scoped resource: the outstanding DNS records a monitored domain still needs. It further distinguishes the tool by naming the exact record types (ownership check, DMARC reporting record, observed status), which sets it apart from sibling tools like get_alerts or get_readiness.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when presenting what records still need to be published before taking DNS actions. It also gives strong workflow guidance about getting human approval before using any DNS tool. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus siblings like check_record or check_domain_verification.

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