get_dns_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming the authoritative backend (pdns/view_zone), which signals live rather than cached data, but it says nothing about pagination, error behavior, or result size for large zones.

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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical backend reference earns its place as provenance, though the colon fragment is slightly clipped rather than a clean declarative statement.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete: it states the input subject, the source system, and the shape of the returned data. It stops just short of the profile of a 5 because nothing addresses large-zone responses or failures.

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% and the single 'zone' parameter is documented with an example (example.com), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format constraints or naming rules beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 names the resource precisely (DNS zone contents) and enumerates what is returned (A, AAAA, CNAME, MX, TXT, etc.), which distinguishes it from list_dns_zones, add_dns_zone, and delete_dns_zone. Its only weakness is the noun-phrase framing – there is no explicit retrieval verb, though the intent is 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?

Usage is implied by scope: fetch the record set for one zone, given a zone name. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or reference to siblings such as list_dns_zones, so the agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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