get_secondary_dns_peer

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get details' correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not disclose response shape, auth requirements, or error behavior, but for a simple retrieval tool the read-only implication is the most important trait.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. The core operation and resource are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a low-complexity two-parameter GET tool with no output schema or annotations. The description, combined with the well-documented schema, is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It would be more complete if it clarified what is returned beyond 'details' or explicitly tied the parameters to the target peer, but nothing essential is missing for invocation.

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%, so both account_id and peer_id are already documented clearly in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships, formats, or lookup semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get details of') and a specific resource ('a specific secondary DNS peer'). The word 'specific' clearly distinguishes this singleton-get tool from sibling list tools such as list_secondary_dns_peers, and the resource naming keeps it distinct from get_secondary_dns_primary.

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?

Usage is implied: you use this tool when you need details about one particular secondary DNS peer rather than listing all peers. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any preconditions such as needing a peer_id.

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