ad_get_dns_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden; the '[READ]' tag is the only behavioral signal. It does not disclose permission needs, what happens when a record is not found, or how record_type defaults when omitted (all set to null). Output schema exists, so return values are fairly covered, but behavior on the call itself is thin.

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 short tagged phrase with no wasted words, front-loaded with category and read-only markers. However the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate compression – there is simply almost nothing there.

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?

With four parameters at 0% description coverage, no annotations, and no usage differentiation from six DNS siblings, the definition leaves too much to inference. The presence of an output schema offsets return-value concerns, but the input and invocation context remain insufficient.

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 0% across all four parameters. The description mentions only 'registro DNS' and does not clarify zone_name vs name, what record_type values are valid, or what correlation_id is for. The schema titles ('Name', 'Zone Name', 'Record Type', 'Correlation Id') are self-labelling but carry no semantics, and the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource in Spanish: 'Consultar registro DNS especifico' (query a specific DNS record). Combined with the '[DNS & Infrastructure] [READ]' tags, an agent can tell this is a single-record read. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling ad_list_dns_records, so the single-vs-list distinction is only implied by 'especifico'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus ad_list_dns_records, ad_get_dns_zone, or ad_test_dns_resolution. The required zone_name+name combination implies 'call this when you already know the record', but the description never says so or states prerequisites.

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