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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the score scale semantics ('higher = lower risk'), the exact components returned, the 'Tuned by buyer profile' behavior, and the hard scope limitation to published DNS with explicit non-actions. This is valuable and consistent with the 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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and packs output details, score interpretation, and scope constraints into a compact structure. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or 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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully characterizes what the caller should expect: a 0-100 score with directionality, six named sub-scores, critical flags, recommended actions, and buyer-profile tuning. It also states the operational scope and exclusions, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 50%: 'domain' has a description but 'buyer_profile' does not. The description adds that the result is 'Tuned by buyer profile,' which gives the parameter purpose beyond the schema enum/default. However, it does not explain how different buyer_profile values affect the score or which profiles exist, leaving the undocumented parameter only partially clarified.

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 identifies the tool as assessing a 'DNS-hygiene + tech-stack-exposure surface' for a domain and explicitly states the output: a 0-100 cyber score, six sub-scores, critical flags, and recommended actions. This distinguishes it from sibling DNS tools like dns_lookup or dns_profile by emphasizing the risk-signal output rather than raw DNS records.

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 provides clear context on what the tool covers and explicitly states exclusions: 'inspects published DNS only — no port scans, breach lookups, or CVE matching.' It also notes the score is 'Tuned by buyer profile,' indicating when parameter customization matters. However, it does not name specific sibling tools or state explicit when-to-use versus alternatives.

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