Get DNS zone

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. It adds little beyond the annotation—only the phrase 'full details' clarifies the scope of the response. No additional behavioral context (e.g., errors, permissions, or return format) is provided, but the annotation lowers the burden.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no fluff or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It lacks an explicit description of the return structure, but 'full details' is a reasonable indicator. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly more detail could be helpful, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 schema has one parameter, 'zone', with a description that already explains it as an ID or name (e.g., 'example.com'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The tool description adds no meaningful semantic info beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a single DNS zone' with 'full details.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_zones and get_rrset, which operate on collections or different resource types.

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 phrase 'a single DNS zone' implies this tool is for retrieving one zone's details as opposed to listing zones, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use case, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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