List DNS Restore Points

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: automatic capture timing (before first hourly write, bulk import, zone wipe, restore), a 50-point return cap, and a real coverage limit (only zones Porkbun holds). This is exactly the beyond-annotation detail that earns top marks.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then organized into usage, capture triggers, field warnings, and limits. The bolded motivational clause is slightly rhetorical, but every paragraph carries information an agent needs, so waste is minimal.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return semantics and does so by interpreting `recordCount` (size as-it-was, drops signal lost records) and `matchesLive` (which point is current), plus the 50-item cap and non-Porkbun-nameserver exclusion. Nothing needed to interpret results 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 ('domain') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully; the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the parameter work.

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 ('List the saved versions of a domain's DNS zone, newest first'), and the ordering scoping distinguishes it from the live-zone siblings like list_dns_records. An agent can tell it apart from list_dns_records, diff_dns_restore_point, and restore_dns_zone without opening a 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?

Explains the trigger for use ('if a record was deleted or edited by mistake you do not need to know what it used to say, you can look') and describes when points are captured relative to restores. It stops short of explicitly naming diff_dns_restore_point or restore_dns_zone as the adjacent actions, so it lacks full when/when-not routing.

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