get_secondary_dns_acl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a read operation returning 'details', but it does not elaborate on what those details are, how the result is scoped to the account, what the response format looks like, or any error/auth considerations. The description barely adds anything beyond what the tool name already communicates.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the tool name or schema.

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?

The tool is simple (2 required string parameters, no nested objects, no enums), so the minimal description is close to sufficient. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'details' are returned for an ACL, leaving the agent to guess at the response shape. Adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool, but a clear gap exists around return value semantics.

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 100%: both account_id and acl_id have descriptions ('The account ID', 'The ACL ID'), so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no parameter-level information, but per the rubric the baseline of 3 applies when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('secondary DNS ACL'), and the word 'specific' signals this is a fetch-by-ID operation rather than a list operation, distinguishing it from sibling list_secondary_dns_acls. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the many other get_* siblings in the same domain (e.g., get_secondary_dns_peer, get_secondary_dns_tsig), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'specific' weakly implies the caller already has an ACL ID, and the required acl_id parameter reinforces that, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative tools (like list_secondary_dns_acls for enumeration) are mentioned.

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