Scan DNS Records

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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds what they can't: writes nothing, a 20-calls-per-hour rate limit, ~90 lookups per call, and the critical limitation that it cannot enumerate a zone, so results are thorough but not exhaustive. It also explains the destructive consequence of skipping the scan.

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 the workflow rationale, limitation, and rate limit. The prose is long but each block earns its place; the middle-transfer narrative is slightly more expansive than strictly needed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys what a scan yields (well-known names, MX, DKIM selectors, verification hosts) and its limits. It stops short of describing the actual return shape, which is the only notable gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with a good example and the note that the domain need not be registered at Porkbun. The description adds no syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 4 applies for a zero-ambiguity single-param tool.

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 precise verb+resource: discover DNS records by querying the domain's live authoritative nameservers. The mechanism (live NS query) distinguishes it from sibling list_dns_records, which reads records stored at Porkbun.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow order — scan, review, call import_dns_records, then change nameservers — and explains why. It also names an alternative path when the losing registrar has its own API, with the credential-handling caveat (user's own credentials, never sent to Porkbun).

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