list_secondary_dns_peers

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 only restates the action and resource without mentioning pagination, response shape, permissions, or whether this returns all peers across the account.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the action and resource are front-loaded. It earns its place, even though it is otherwise minimal.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description is barely adequate. It does not state what is returned, whether pagination applies, or how account_id is used beyond the schema, so it leans heavily on the tool name.

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?

The schema already documents account_id with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond saying 'for an account'. The single parameter is fully described in the input schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'secondary DNS peers', and scopes it to an account. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_secondary_dns_peer, but the plural 'List' versus 'get' makes the intended operation reasonably clear.

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?

The intended use is implied: enumerate all secondary DNS peers for a given account. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over related tools like get_secondary_dns_peer or list_secondary_dns_tsigs, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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