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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses the cost (500 sats per call) and enumerates the data categories (WHOIS, DNS, SSL). It does not mention error conditions or authentication, but for a simple read-only intel tool, the cost and scope provide reasonable transparency.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second conveys the cost. No filler words; every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only intel tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and cost. The lack of return-format details is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps it sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already describes 'domain' with 100% coverage. The tool description adds meaning by specifying that any domain is accepted and that the intel includes WHOIS, DNS, and SSL, enriching the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal label.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides WHOIS, DNS records, and SSL certificate intel for any domain. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like verity_sentiment or verity_btc_price.

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 implies usage for domain analysis ('any domain') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling list confirms no overlap, which helps, but the description itself lacks direct alternatives or exclusions.

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