get_secondary_dns_incoming

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only restates the read-only nature already implied by 'Get'. It does not mention required permissions, response format, potential errors, or side effects, offering little beyond the tool name itself.

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?

The description is a single, focused phrase with no filler, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is so thin that it misses an opportunity to use the available space to add context about the operation.

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?

For a simple one-parameter GET operation, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer it needs a zone_id and will receive configuration data. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no relationship to sibling tools, the description lacks broader context about what the configuration contains or when to use this tool.

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%, and the only parameter, zone_id, is already documented as 'The zone ID'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('secondary DNS incoming zone transfer configuration'), so the action and target are unambiguous. The 'incoming' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_secondary_dns_outgoing and get_secondary_dns_primary, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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 related secondary DNS tools, such as get_secondary_dns_outgoing or list_secondary_dns_peers. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation from the name alone.

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