List DNS zones

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds the deprecation context about record CRUD, but that concerns a sibling tool, not this one. No additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, defaults) are disclosed beyond what annotations and schema cover.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the sibling routing note. No redundant phrases.

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 list operation with three optional parameters fully documented in the schema and a read-only annotation, the description is sufficient. It lacks return-format details, but no output schema exists, and the tool's simplicity makes that acceptable. The sibling note adds practical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (page, userId, pagesize) clearly described. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('DNS zones'), and scope ('on the account'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling ws_dns_record_list by noting that tool handles records inside a zone, while this one lists zones. The purpose is immediately 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 description explicitly directs users to ws_dns_record_list for records, and notes that v1 record CRUD is deprecated and deliberately not exposed. This provides a clear when-to-use versus alternative guidance, preventing misuse.

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