liara_get_dns_record

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. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't confirm this or address other behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the complexity of a DNS system and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how errors are handled, or any dependencies on other tools. For a read operation in a domain with many related tools, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'zoneId' and 'recordId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are needed to fetch details, which is already evident from the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Get details of a DNS record' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('DNS record'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'liara_get_domain' or 'liara_get_zone' which also retrieve DNS-related information, nor does it specify what 'details' include beyond what might be obvious from the name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'liara_list_dns_records' (for listing records) and 'liara_get_domain'/'liara_get_zone' (for related DNS entities), there's no indication of prerequisites, such as needing to know specific IDs from a list operation first, or when this is the appropriate choice over other get operations.

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