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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses which subsystems are probed (DNS, RDAP, TLS), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about side effects, whether the call is read-only, rate limits, auth requirements, or failure modes for malformed/nonexistent domains.

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?

One front-loaded sentence of purpose plus one short parameter note; no filler, and the most important information (what is audited) comes first.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the input side is adequately covered, but the agent gets no sense of the return shape (per-subsystem results? errors for unresolvable domains?) or expected latency. Minimum viable, with clear gaps.

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 must compensate, and it does: 'Dominio sin esquema, por ejemplo `example.com`' specifies the required format (no scheme) and gives a concrete example, preventing the common 'https://example.com' mistake.

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 ('Audita') plus the exact scope inspected (DNS, RDAP, TLS) on a public domain, so an agent knows this is a domain-level audit rather than the mail or web audits of its siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with auditar_correo/auditar_web, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools. The only implicit constraint is 'público', which hints that non-public/internal domains are out of scope but never says so.

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