Get RRSet

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, such as emphasizing 'single' to exclude pagination or multi-result behavior. It does not disclose error handling, authorization requirements, or other operational details, but for a simple read operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core behavior. It contains no fluff, jargon, or redundancy, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 getter with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the resource, the lookup criteria, and the fact that it returns a single item. It could have elaborated on the return format, but given the simplicity and the presence of sibling tools (e.g., list_rrsets), the description provides sufficient context.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (zone, name, type), with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'by name and type' reinforces the lookup semantics but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single RRSet'), and the exact scope ('of a zone by name and type'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_rrsets and create_rrset by emphasizing 'single' and the lookup criteria.

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 the primary use case: retrieving one specific RRSet by name and type. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like list_rrsets, so the guidance relies on inference rather than explicit direction.

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