Domain DNS Records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: each call performs real DNS lookups, calls are rate-limited, and it defines the exact meaning of each record state, including the crucial rule that 'missing' means not-yet-published rather than an error, and that 'unknown' is a lookup failure, not a statement about the user's DNS.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining material (state semantics, the warning against treating 'missing' as an error, rate limiting) is load-bearing information that prevents misreporting. The single dense paragraph could be split into clearer chunks, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by defining the record states and the meaning of summary.complete. It also discloses rate limiting. The only gap is that it doesn't cover parameter sourcing or what fields each record carries.

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 description coverage is 100%, with cubeId, spaceId, and mappingId all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about these parameters — it never explains that mappingId must come from list_domains or how spaceId interacts with the server default.

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 names a concrete resource — the DNS records a domain needs — and states they are checked against live DNS, which is enough to separate it from the domain CRUD siblings (create_domain, update_domain, list_domains). The verb is implicit (retrieve/check) rather than stated, and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use triggers: answering "what DNS do I add?" and checking progress after the user publishes records. It also gives an explicit when-not: real lookups are rate limited, so don't poll in a tight loop.

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