dns_get_zone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful piece of context — the required dns:read scope, which tells the agent about authorization needs — but says nothing about the shape of the response or whether it is paginated or incomplete 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?

Two terse fragments with no filler, and the scope is front-loaded. But the brevity crosses into under-specification: the first sentence omits what the tool actually returns, so conciseness is bought at the cost of clarity.

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 and a name/description mismatch, the description leaves the core question unanswered: does it return the zone object or all of its DNS records? For a read tool with no other structured documentation of return values, this gap matters.

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 coverage is 100% and the zone parameter is documented with an example ('example.com'), so the description correctly does not repeat it. No additional semantics such as zone-id vs domain-name handling are provided, which is consistent with the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 phrase 'All records of one zone' indicates the resource and its scope (single zone), which does distinguish it from dns_list_zones. However, it is a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, and it conflicts with the tool name dns_get_zone — an agent cannot tell whether it returns zone metadata or the record set of that zone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus dns_list_zones, get_server, or dns_add_record. The single-zone scope only implies when it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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