Get DNS records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description repeats 'Read-only' but adds non-obvious behavior: provider selection logic, domain registrable-form handling, and the Route 53 record-set grouping with shared IDs and TTLs. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and reveals important invocation nuances.

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 two tight paragraphs: a front-loaded purpose sentence, then provider/domain semantics, then a brief provider-specific edge case. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema data.

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 only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all invocation-relevant details: domain format, provider routing/force, and a meaningful Route 53 grouping behavior. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call it correctly without additional research.

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%, so parameters are already documented, but the description enriches both: domain is further explained as the registrable domain with sub-domains placed in each record's `name`, and provider auto-routing vs. forcing is clarified. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'List every DNS record for a domain' — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes this tool from siblings like modify_dns_records or get_nameservers. It also clarifies that it covers all providers and both the domain and provider selection logic, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explains provider auto-routing and when to pass `provider` ('unless you pass `provider`'), and the schema adds that provider is needed when the domain doesn't exist yet. It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., 'use modify_dns_records for edits'), but the intended use case—listing existing DNS records—is clear enough for correct selection.

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