DNS-записи домена

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (GET) which hints at read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it mention pagination, response format, authentication requirements, or any other operational details. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 exceptionally concise, containing only two short statements: the purpose phrase and the HTTP endpoint. There is no redundancy, fluff, or irrelevant information, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks any usage context or return value description, leaving potential gaps for an agent about what the response contains or how to handle edge cases. While not severely deficient, it stops at the bare minimum.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter fqdn, with its description 'Домен' (domain). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the endpoint placeholder {fqdn}, so the schema carries the semantic weight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Все DNS-записи домена' (All DNS records of the domain) and provides the full HTTP GET endpoint. This explicitly identifies a read-only list operation and distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like create_dns_record, update_dns_record, and delete_dns_record.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The read-only nature and sibling tool names imply usage for viewing records, but the description itself does not provide context, exclusions, or references to alternative tools.

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