list_dns_records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic action. It discloses nothing about pagination behavior, default per_page limits, filter matching semantics (exact vs. prefix), sorting, or what fields appear in each record — all material for a list operation with a pagination parameter.

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?

Six words, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because it is concise at the expense of any added value — no mention of pagination or record filters that could have been folded in without bloating the sentence.

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 has no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for indicating what is returned; it says nothing about the response shape or pagination. With no annotations and no return-value disclosure, an agent cannot predict how to handle multi-page results or what record fields to expect.

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% — all four parameters (zone_id, name, type, per_page) are documented in the schema itself. Per the rubric baseline, the description need not repeat parameter meaning; it adds nothing beyond the schema, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS records') with a clear scope ('for a zone'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the natural sibling get_dns_record (single record vs. all records for a zone), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among 400+ siblings including get_dns_record, get_dnssec, and list_dns_views, the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints — an agent must infer entirely from the name.

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