List RRSets

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to establish safety. It adds that results include records, TTLs, and protection status, which helps set expectations, but it does not disclose pagination limits, filtering behavior, or any other runtime traits beyond the schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's core purpose and return contents with no filler or repetition. Every word adds value.

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 read-only listing operation, the description provides enough context: it identifies the target resource and the key fields returned. Pagination and filter details are fully covered in the schema, so the absence of an output schema is not a critical gap.

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 parameters like 'name', 'type', 'page', and 'per_page' are already well documented. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('RRSets of a zone'), clearly distinguishing from singular get_rrset and zone-level tools. It names the key included fields (records, TTLs, protection status), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to list all RRSets in a zone. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_rrset for a single RRset, export_zonefile for zone export, or list_zones for zone listing, so guidance on alternatives is weak.

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