NS домена

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it is a GET request, implying read-only, but does not disclose what the response contains, whether the domain must exist, or any error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just a noun phrase and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the resource name and the HTTP method, and no words are wasted. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though conciseness itself is not penalized here.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description could be more complete. It does not explain the return format, any conditions on the 'fqdn', or clarify that this is a read-only operation. Sibling tools like list_dns_records and get_domain suggest broader DNS-related functionality, and this description does not help the agent understand where this fits.

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 the single parameter 'fqdn' with a description ('Домен'), so the basic meaning is clear. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline 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 resource (name servers of a domain) and the API endpoint, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_dns_records and get_domain because it specifically targets name servers, though it lacks an explicit verb and reads as a noun phrase.

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, or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the domain needing to exist or be managed by the account, nor any reference to sibling tools for related operations.

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