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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It details what data is returned (whois, DNS, providers, SPF/DMARC, risk flags) and even includes pricing. However, it does not disclose data freshness, rate limits, or whether any active scanning occurs, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, information-dense sentence followed by use cases and price. It is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The enumerated data types are arguably more detailed than necessary, but each adds value, making it appropriately concise without being terse.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the categories of returned information and the intended use cases. However, it does not describe the output structure, error behavior, or data source provenance, so it is not fully complete for an agent needing precise invocation expectations.

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 is fully covered (100%) by the parameter description, which already explains the domain field and URL-to-hostname reduction. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond reinforcing that the domain is the input, so it earns the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool aggregates comprehensive domain intelligence in one call, listing specific data types (registration, expiry, DNS, providers, SaaS vendors, SPF/DMARC, risk flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like intel_company (company-focused) and intel_site_audit (site-focused) by focusing on domain-level data.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use for vendor due diligence, security triage, phishing checks and prospect research.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.