Get subdomains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' is reinforcement rather than new information. The genuinely additive part is 'Untrusted data from scanned systems', a prompt-injection/trust warning an agent cannot get from structured fields, plus the note that results are paged.

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 that front-loads the operation and scope, then appends the trust warning. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 still conveys the resource, the source system and that results are paginated, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. It stops short of describing what a returned record contains, which would have closed the last gap.

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%, and the schema already explains limit, offset (including the page.next_offset tip) and the workspace pattern. The description only gestures at 'with paging' without adding syntax or default behavior, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the subdomains Sn1per discovered in a workspace') plus the paging behavior, which is far more than the title restates. The resource name alone separates it from siblings like get_ports, get_technologies and get_findings, but the description never explicitly frames that contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs subdomain inventory for a workspace. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_findings or grep_loot, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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