Список DNS-записей домена

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

The description contradicts the annotations: it says 'Возвращает' (returns), implying a read-only operation, while readOnlyHint is false. This is a serious inconsistency. No additional behavioral details are provided, so the annotation contradiction makes transparency poor.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and return fields. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or fluff.

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 simple listing operation with one parameter, the description adequately states the resource and the returned data. It lacks details like pagination or error conditions, but these are not critical for such a tool. The annotation contradiction, however, undermines overall context slightly.

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 input schema has one required parameter fqdn with a complete description, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns all user DNS records for a domain, listing specific fields (ID, type, value, TTL, subdomain, priority). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_default_dns_records because it specifies 'пользовательские' (user) records.

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 provides clear context for when to use (listing custom DNS records of a domain) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools hint at classification (e.g., list_default_dns_records), but the description does not reference them.

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