DomainDNA

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what the response contains and the 1-10 domain batching, which is useful context, but says nothing about per-domain failure behavior, rate limits, or data staleness for a network-backed lookup.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the data source and then the payload, with zero filler. Every element earns its place in the definition.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields, and it states the batch bounds. Only the per-domain error/failure semantics are missing, which is a minor gap for a simple read-only lookup.

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 a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only restates the cardinality constraint (1-10 domains) that the schema already enforces via minItems/maxItems. No format guidance is given (whether inputs need schemes, subdomains, IDN handling), so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 names the resource (RDAP registration data) and enumerates the returned fields (registrar, created, updated, expires, age, status), so an agent can tell it retrieves WHOIS-style registration details. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling domain_report, which likely overlaps.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus domain_report, email_security, or tech_stack, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only usage signal is the batch size limit, which is not the same as routing 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data scope it gathers but says nothing about cost, latency, rate limiting, or partial-failure behavior for what is clearly a multi-source aggregation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the payload rather than padding with prose. The comma-and-parenthesis list is dense but every item earns its place by telling the agent what it gets back.

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 enumerating the returned sections is the right way to fill that gap, and it does so thoroughly. It is slightly incomplete for an aggregation tool in not hinting at the multi-request latency or failure modes.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the input accepts 'one domain, URL or email', whereas the schema property is only named 'domain' with example 'stripe.com'. That widens the accepted input types beyond what the structured field conveys.

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 names the concrete artifacts produced (tech stack with evidence, email provider, SPF/DMARC, DNS, RDAP registration, security headers, site files) for one target, which is more specific than the title's generic 'full domain report'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the aggregate superset, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'Full domain report' framing implies this is the all-in-one option versus the narrower siblings (domain_registration, email_security, tech_stack), but an agent must infer that tradeoff on its own.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema's own 1-5 domain limit — nothing about failure handling for unresolvable domains, resolution cost, or whether results are cached. It contributes essentially nothing an agent can't get from the structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the domain count is placed at the end where it is easily found. It is jargon-heavy but nothing is wasted.

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, listing the returned record types (MX, SPF, DMARC pct/rua, A/AAAA/NS/TXT) is genuinely useful and is the description's main contribution. Still, for a tool that fans out DNS lookups across multiple record types, the absence of any usage or failure-behavior context leaves it only minimally 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden, and 'for 1-5 domains' usefully restates the accepted cardinality. However, it says nothing about element format (bare domain vs. URL vs. subdomain), and the maxItems=5 constraint is already in the schema, so the addition is marginal.

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 enumerates the data the tool collects (MX provider, SPF qualifiers, DMARC policy/pct/rua, A/AAAA/NS/TXT checks) but never states a verb or framing like 'look up' or 'check email security DNS records for domains'. It reads as a return-value list rather than a purpose statement, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as tech_stack that also probe a 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., domain must be resolvable), and no routing to or away from siblings like tech_stack or domain_report. Usage is only weakly implied by the resource being a domain.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful output context ('with the evidence for each, plus security headers') and input scope ('1-3 websites'), but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or return-format details beyond the listed categories.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence that moves from resource to output categories to scope without any filler. Every clause earns its place and the key constraint (1-3 websites) is included compactly.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the input scope and the main returned content categories including security headers. It is slightly incomplete on domain-format expectations and exact return structure, but annotations carry the behavioral safety profile and the tool is otherwise well-scoped.

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 schema description coverage at 0% and one required parameter, the description must compensate for missing parameter semantics. It only restates the 1-3 website limit already encoded by minItems/maxItems in the schema and does not clarify whether domains should be bare hostnames, URLs, or another format.

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 names a specific resource (technologies used by websites) and lists the concrete output categories (CMS, e-commerce, frameworks, analytics, tag managers, CDN, chat) plus security headers. It clearly distinguishes tech_stack from siblings like domain_registration, domain_report, and email_security by resource domain, though it does not explicitly name when to choose it over them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'for 1-3 websites', leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate relative to domain_report or email_security.

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