get_domain_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It correctly specifies the return types (MX, TXT, CNAME) and the registrar context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/no side effects, nor does it mention potential error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first. The return type summary and the parameter explanation each add value with no wasted words.

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 tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and parameter origin. The output schema handles return structure, so the description is sufficiently complete, though it could mention error scenarios.

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 only defines 'domain_id' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the ID comes from list_domains, adding practical source context that the schema lacks.

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 'Get' and the resource 'DNS records required to verify a domain.' It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling verify_domain by explaining these records are prerequisites for that action.

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 clear context by stating 'before calling verify_domain,' indicating when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple read operation.

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