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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context about version stamps (scoringModelVersion vs dnsChecksPackageVersion independence and reporting requirements for scoringConfigHash). This matches the high bar by adding meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 well-structured and the version-stamp caveat earns its place. The sentence about version stamps is useful but could be seen as overly detailed for a description, though it's essential domain context. Everything earns its place; only minor length concerns prevent a 5.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what it returns (score, grade, finding counts), and version semantics. The description is complete for a batch list-style tool despite lacking an output schema. Slight deduction for not explicitly describing pagination or error behavior for the 10-domain limit.

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%, so the baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds context about 'hoisted once per batch' version stamps and output includes score/grade/finding counts, but the parameter descriptions in the schema are already adequate. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 is very clear: 'Bulk-scan up to 10 domains in parallel' with specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly describes auditing multiple domains at once, distinct from sibling tool compare_domains. The 6-band letter grade explanation (A+/A/B/C/D/F) adds valuable specificity.

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 distinguishes this tool from compare_domains (side-by-side analysis of 2–5 domains), giving clear when-to-use guidance. It explains when to use batch_scan versus the alternative, which fully satisfies the usage guidelines criteria.

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