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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: credit cost per mode (overview 2, whois 1, dns 1, tech-stack 2, security 2, subdomains 2). It says nothing about rate limits, authentication, caching, or whether results are live vs cached, which is a meaningful gap for an un-annotated tool.

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 tight sentences: the capability list comes first, followed by the cost table. No filler, and every token in the cost enumeration maps to a real decision (which mode to spend credits on).

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 and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what data comes back and what each mode costs, which is what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It stops short of covering auth, rate limits, or how it differs from the sibling 'domains' tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by mapping each enum mode to its credit cost, which the schema does not convey. It also clarifies that the default overview mode is the broader, more expensive aggregate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('domain intelligence') and enumerates the exact data categories returned (WHOIS, DNS, SSL, tech stack, email security, hosting). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'domains' tool, so an agent must guess which of the two to pick for domain lookups.

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 per-mode cost list implicitly guides mode selection, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the overlapping 'domains' sibling. Usage is inferable from the mode/cost table rather than stated.

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