Front Sentinel

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it identifies the RDAP data source, defines registry lock as serverUpdateProhibited plus serverTransferProhibited, and explains the on/partly-on/off reporting logic.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the data source and the core result. Every clause contributes: RDAP, the lock definition, the three-state outcome, and registrar-level locks.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably explains the return classification and the registrar-level lock detail. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read-only check, though it does not mention behavior for missing domains, RDAP failures, or rate limits.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema already gives 100% description coverage, including that URLs are accepted and only the host is used. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it reads a domain's EPP status codes from RDAP and reports whether registry lock is on, partly on, or off, plus registrar-level locks. The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as check_seal_dns_registrar or scan_domain.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated prerequisites, and no exclusions. The use case can be inferred from the description, but the definition provides no actual usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the five result categories (ok, partial, gap, not visible from outside, process control) and the caveat that some controls cannot be verified externally and must be documented by the team — that sets expectations about false negatives.

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, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a coverage list. The list of protocols is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what evidence is gathered. No filler or hedging.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so by enumerating the possible status values. Combined with the stated 16-control scope, an agent knows what it will get back. Only the per-control output shape and cost/runtime are left unspecified.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that a URL is accepted and only the host is used. The description adds nothing about the domain parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it walks the 16 SEAL DNS & Registrar controls and reports a status per control, with an explicit list of covered areas (DNSSEC, CAA, SPF/DMARC/MTA-STS, locks, expiry, security.txt). It never names or contrasts itself with siblings such as scan_domain or check_registry_lock, despite overlap on locks/expiry, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the certification framing — you run this when you want a SEAL DNS/Registrar readiness verdict rather than raw scan data. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so the choice between this and scan_domain is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses network fetching of a live page, that only third-party files are hash-checked, and that a ready sha384 is synthesized for unhashed files. It omits failure behavior for unreachable or blocked pages and any rate/robustness limits.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes scope and what is enumerated, the second establishes the integrity analysis and the generated hash. Purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does explain the shape of results (resource list, integrity presence/match, generated sha384). What is missing is behavior on fetch failure or non-public URLs, which matters for an open-world network tool.

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 a single required 'url' parameter, and the schema already states 'Public https page URL or domain' with an example. The description only echoes 'public page' and adds no syntax, normalization or domain-vs-URL handling details, so the baseline of 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?

States specific verbs and resources: loads a public page and enumerates scripts, stylesheets and preloads, then verifies integrity hashes and emits a sha384 for those missing one. This is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools (registry lock, DNS registrar, domain scan), so an agent can identify it without consulting the schema.

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 phrase 'public page' implicitly constrains applicability (no auth-protected or non-https targets), which gives some usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer scan_domain or the other check_* siblings, and no note on prerequisites or failure conditions.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful context: the 0-100 score, per-check pass/fail/unknown outcomes with advice, and a one-hour cache TTL that tells the agent results may be stale.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose and scope first, then return shape, then the caching caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by naming the score range, per-check statuses and advice. The cache TTL is disclosed. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'unknown' means operationally or expected latency for a multi-resolver scan.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that a URL is accepted and only the host is used. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Scores how well a dApp or website domain is protected against hijacking") and enumerates the exact checks performed, so an agent knows precisely what this does. It stops short of explicitly naming the narrower siblings (check_registry_lock, check_sri), though the enumerated coverage implies this is the aggregate scan.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: because it bundles registrar locks, DNSSEC, SRI and CSP, an agent can infer this is the broad scan versus the single-check siblings. However, there is no explicit 'use this when you want a full picture, use check_sri when you only need one check' routing, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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