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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be non-destructive and may return data beyond the described scope. The description adds value by confirming the passive nature of the reconnaissance, which aligns with readOnlyHint, and by disclosing the types of findings returned (DNS, certificates, registration, hosting, exposure) with sources. It also explicitly states that people are not accepted, a behavioral limitation not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and immediately enumerates accepted target types and output categories. Every clause contributes value—no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and structured for quick agent parsing.

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 read-only reconnaissance tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (findings with sources) and what is not accepted. It covers the main use cases and constraints. Minor gaps remain—e.g., whether results are paginated, whether rate limits apply, or what the exact response format looks like—but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly given its read-only nature and the existing annotation coverage.

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%—both 'target' and 'quote' are fully described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters. It merely repeats the allowed target types. Since the schema carries the full weight, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs passive reconnaissance on infrastructure and enumerates the exact accepted target types (domain, IP, URL, AS, CVE). It also specifies the output (DNS, certificates, registration, hosting, exposure findings) and each finding includes its source. This is a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes itself from siblings like wallet_intel or scan_token by scoping to infrastructure rather than people or tokens.

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 gives a clear exclusion: people-related entities (emails, usernames, phone numbers, names) are not accepted, which helps an agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like web_search or scan_token, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for choosing it. The guidance is partial—it says what not to input but not when it is the best choice.

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