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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the report's contents (DNS, headers, phishing, etc.), which gives some insight into behavior (aggregates multiple checks). However, it omits any details about side effects, performance implications, or the response format, which are relevant for a report 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Full domain intelligence report') and then enumerates the included components. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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?

The description covers the main scope of the report well, listing all major data categories. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent must infer the output structure from the component list. It does not mention response format, potential delays, or error handling, which would be useful for a multi-source report.

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% because the description does not explicitly describe the 'domain' parameter. While the tool name and description imply the domain is the input, no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema's type and required flag. The description fails to compensate for low schema coverage.

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 identifies what the tool does: produces a full domain intelligence report, explicitly listing DNS, HTTP headers, phishing signals, registrar hint, and email security (SPF/DMARC). This specific resource and scope distinguish it from the sibling tools (dns_lookup, phishing_check, security_headers), which cover individual aspects.

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 use case is implied rather than directly stated. The word 'Full' suggests use when a comprehensive view is needed, while the sibling names imply alternatives for specific checks. However, the description does not explicitly say 'use this for an all-in-one report' or contrast it with the individual tools.

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