List DNS Records

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate safety traits. The description adds the scoping detail 'for a specific domain' and the completeness implication of 'all' records, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, potential errors, or authentication context beyond what annotations already cover.

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, focused sentence that states the operation and the required scope. There is no redundant language, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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, one-parameter read-only operation backed by strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of any explicit statement about return value shape, but since no output schema is provided, a short note about returning DNS records could make it fully self-contained. Still, an agent can call this tool correctly with the current description.

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 single parameter domain_id is already described in the schema as 'The domain ID to list DNS records for'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about where the domain_id comes from or how to obtain it, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 identifies the verb ('List'), the resource ('DNS records'), and the scope ('for a specific domain'). It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling DNS record mutation tools or from kinsta_dns_domains, relying instead on the verb and wording to imply the distinction.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when a user wants DNS records belonging to a specific domain, and the schema requires a domain_id. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools should be used instead, such as creating, updating, or deleting records.

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