Get Nameservers

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that data is read live from the registry and that ordering is non-deterministic and semantically meaningless. The warning never to report a reordering as a change is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the ordering caveat; every sentence earns its place. The heavy bold emphasis is slightly noisy but not wasteful.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states the return shape (array of nameserver hostnames), its source (registry), and the key interpretation rule. Nothing an agent needs to call and correctly use this tool is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (fully qualified domain name with an example), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the domain argument itself, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current nameservers configured for a domain') and explicitly frames itself as the 'read-only complement to update_nameservers', so an agent can separate it from the sibling write tool without opening either schema.

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?

Clear that this is the read side of the nameserver pair versus update_nameservers, and it gives a concrete handling instruction (treat as unordered set). It doesn't spell out a general when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule beyond that pairing, so it stops short of a 5.

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