Domain DNS Records

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: each call performs real DNS lookups, is rate limited, and returns per-record states with specific meanings for missing, mismatch, unknown, and summary.complete. It also explicitly prevents misinterpretation of 'missing' as an error and 'unknown' as user fault.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and use cases, then flows into state semantics and operational warnings. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the potentially confusing states are clarified inline rather than left to inference.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return semantics: per-record states, summary.complete behavior, and the meaning of each state in context. It also covers operational constraints like live DNS lookups and rate limiting, making the tool callable without missing information.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does imply the mappingId is a domain mapping context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the DNS records a domain needs, with each record checked against live DNS. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_domains by focusing on record states and DNS lookup progress rather than domain mapping management.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to answer 'what DNS do I add?' and to check progress after the user publishes records. It also gives a when-not instruction by warning against tight-loop polling due to rate limits, which helps the agent select appropriate call frequency.

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