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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the data source (Certificate Transparency logs plus DechoNet observations), the interaction model (one first-page request per host, no logins or path guessing), the rate limit (up to ~1 minute, heavier than other tools), no API key requirement, and the 'public view only' limitation that per-host lists and sensitive-file checks are never returned here. This is rich operational context that annotations could not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then behavioral caveats, so the agent gets the most important routing information first. It is information-dense and long, but nearly every clause carries distinct value; a slight trim of the category enumeration would tighten it without loss.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not restate return fields, yet it summarises the return shape (counts per category, verdict bad/warn/ok, recommended action) and covers limitations, cost and permissions. An agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'domain' parameter is already documented, including the note that scheme, path and leading www. are stripped. The description adds no further syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

Specific verb (map) plus resource (what an organisation exposes beyond its home page), with an explicit enumeration of categories (subdomains, directory listings, admin screens, VPN logins, staging servers, default pages). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like subdomain_discovery, port_scan and security_scan by framing the job as internet-facing asset exposure classification.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'use this when a user wants to know their attack surface or after a breach in their sector.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus subdomain_discovery or port_scan), which keeps it short of a 5.

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