domain-intel

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions using Cloudflare DoH but omits key details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key info. No wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context like return format, error cases, or supported record types. It lacks depth.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning (only an example). Baseline 3 applies.

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 resolves DNS records for a domain, listing specific record types. It distinguishes well from siblings like full_report or phishing_check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., full_report). No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists included data sources but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, error handling, or performance implications of aggregating multiple checks.

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 sentence front-loads the main purpose and efficiently lists the report components with no wasted words.

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 covers what the report includes but omits output format, error behavior, and prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive for a 'full report' 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 0%. The description only repeats 'domain' without adding format, constraints, or context beyond the schema's type definition. For a single required parameter, more guidance would be helpful.

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 it provides a full domain intelligence report listing specific components (DNS, HTTP headers, phishing signals, registrar hint, email security). This distinctively differentiates it from sibling tools like dns_lookup and phishing_check which are narrower.

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 implies use for a comprehensive overview but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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?

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only analysis, but does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, requires no authentication, or handles rate limits. The heuristic nature is mentioned but lacks depth.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and output. However, it could be structured more clearly, e.g., separating purpose from output details.

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 should explain return values in more detail. It mentions risk level and signal list but gives no examples or specifics (e.g., what signals are included, how risk is computed). Basic completeness for a simple tool, but gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the domain parameter by context but adds no format constraints, examples, or validation rules beyond the schema's basic type. The description does not enhance understanding of input requirements.

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 heuristic phishing/suspicious-domain signal analysis and returns a risk level and signal list. It differentiates from siblings like dns_lookup and security_headers by focusing on phishing signals, but lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'analyze' or 'check').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dns_lookup for general DNS, full_report for comprehensive data). An agent cannot determine when phishing_check is preferred or if it complements other tools.

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?

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it performs HTTP requests, is read-only, or has rate limits. Only mentions the output score.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it lacks structure. Could be improved with bullet points or more detail without being verbose.

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?

Mentions return of a score, which is helpful given no output schema. However, lacks detail on error conditions, list of checked headers, and how the score is computed. Adequate for a simple tool but not comprehensive.

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 has one parameter (domain) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain the parameter's format, restrictions, or meaning beyond the name, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action (check), resource (HTTP security headers), and output (0–100 score). It lists example headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options) and distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup and phishing_check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like full_report or phishing_check. Lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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