dns_get_domain

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions that the return includes 'creation date and DNSSEC status', which is helpful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though the verb 'Get' implies it), nor does it clarify error conditions or whether the domain must exist. The lack of annotations increases the burden, and the description only partially meets it.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement, an Args section explaining the parameter, and a Returns section summarizing the output. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. A minor improvement would be to rephrase 'Args' and 'Returns' in a more natural prose style, but it's efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does and what the parameter is. It also hints at the return fields. However, it lacks behavioral details like whether the domain must be owned or if it can fetch public info, and there's no mention of error handling or idempotency. Since annotations are absent, these gaps reduce completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description says 'domain: The domain name to get details for', which adds clarity on what the parameter represents, but it doesn't specify the expected format (e.g., 'example.com', punycode for IDNs, or trailing dot). This is a minor gap given the simple nature of the parameter.

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 purpose: retrieve details for a specific DNS domain, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'domain'. It differentiates from siblings like dns_list_domains (which lists) and dns_get_record (which gets a record), so an agent can select it correctly.

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 implies when to use it: when you need details of a single DNS domain. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like dns_list_domains for listing or dns_get_record for records. The context is clear enough for basic selection but lacks explicit exclusions.

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