get_dns_secondary_zone

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic get operation, which is acceptable for a simple read. It does not contradict annotations and doesn't need to repeat them. However, it offers no additional nuance like authentication or response format, which would be nice but not essential here.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The description is front-loaded and wastes no words. It effectively communicates the core action without redundancy.

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 read tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the resource and action. The absence of output format details is minor since no output schema exists and the tool is straightforward. An agent can call it correctly with the given information.

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 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('the ID of the secondary DNS zone'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific secondary DNS zone'). It distinguishes from list_dns_secondary_zones (listing all) and get_dns_secondary_zone_axfr (fetching AXFR records) through the specific phrasing, though it doesn't explicitly name the siblings. The purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling names hint at distinctions (list vs. get, axfr vs. general details), the description does not state when to choose this over get_dns_secondary_zone_axfr or list_dns_secondary_zones. An agent must infer from naming conventions.

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