get_dns_record

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the read intent implied by the tool name and does not disclose response shape, permissions, rate-limit implications, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the word 'get'.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler or redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter read operation where the schema fully documents the inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is not told what fields the returned DNS record details include or how to obtain dns_record_id via a list call.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented with clear descriptions ('The zone ID', 'The DNS record ID'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but none is needed for these straightforward identifiers.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pairing ('Get details of a specific DNS record') and the word 'specific' signals singular lookup rather than listing. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_dns_records, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as list_dns_records or get_dnssec. There is no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining the dns_record_id first, nor any exclusion conditions.

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