dns_list_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details such as the ability to omit per_page to fetch all records, format selection, and pagination via cursor. These go beyond the schema and help the agent understand expected behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the name and context imply 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 one-sentence purpose statement followed by a structured parameter list and return description. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the core function. Every line adds value.

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 description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with semantics, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail the return structure. It could mention prerequisites like domain ownership, but that is likely common to DNS tools. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 zero descriptions for parameters, so the description is the sole source of parameter semantics. It explains each parameter clearly: domain is the target domain, format has 'zone' (default) or 'json', record_type lists valid types, per_page gives a range and notes that omitting fetches all, and cursor is for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 and resource ('List DNS records for a domain') and clarifies that it supports compact zone format and filtering. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dns_get_record (which retrieves a single record) and dns_list_domains (which lists domains).

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 usage for listing all records of a domain but does not explicitly contrast it with dns_get_record or dns_list_domains. It mentions filtering and format options, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. The purpose is clear, but usage context is only implied.

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