Get RRSet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds that it returns a single RRSet but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns the full record set with TTL or just the records. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal context beyond them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key action. It's concise and to the point. Slightly could mention that it's read-only but the annotation covers that. Score 4 because it's efficient and free of fluff.

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 get operation with 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and a readOnly hint, the description is adequate. It conveys the core purpose. No output schema, but returning a single RRSet is implied. It could mention absence of filtering options, but it's not necessary. Completeness is high given the tool's simplicity.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but that's fine since schema is complete. The enum for type and regex for name/zone are well documented. No extra semantics needed, so baseline 3.

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 action (get), the resource (a single RRSet), and the scoping (by name and type within a zone). It distinguishes from siblings like list_rrsets (which would list all) and create/update/delete (which mutate). The phrase 'Get a single RRSet' is specific and unambiguous.

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 this is for fetching one specific RRSet, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_rrsets or mention that it's read-only. It provides clear context (by name and type) but no exclusion or alternative naming. Acceptable but could be stronger.

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