list_dns_records

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the scope (all zones). It does not disclose potential pagination, response size implications, or whether the result includes DNS records from all zone types (primary, secondary, etc.). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a middle score is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler words. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the operation and its scope without any unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless read-only tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete, but it leaves some ambiguity about what 'all DNS records' encompasses—does it include secondary zone records or only primary zones? It also does not mention whether the response could be large or require pagination. Given the sibling list_dns_secondary_zone_records exists, a sentence clarifying the scope would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to document.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all DNS records'), and the scope ('across all zones'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dns_zone_records or list_dns_secondary_zone_records, which are zone-specific. The verb and resource are specific enough that an agent immediately knows what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_dns_zone_records or list_dns_secondary_zone_records. The description does not mention the trade-off between fetching everything at once versus zone-scoped queries, nor any prerequisites or limitations. An agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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