domain_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output categories (e.g., DNS records, reputation) but doesn't describe key behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, latency, or what happens with invalid inputs. The phrase 'supports identifying malicious or suspicious domains' hints at security analysis but lacks operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose ('Analyzes a given domain...') followed by specific insights. It uses two sentences efficiently, with the second sentence adding value by emphasizing security applications. There's minimal redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for output types).

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 the tool's complexity (security analysis with multiple output categories), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It outlines what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, output structure, and usage context. For a security tool with rich potential outputs, more guidance on results and limitations would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing a clear example value. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or usage of the 'query' parameter). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional param details.

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's purpose as analyzing domains to provide specific insights (DNS records, HTTP certificate details, reputation, security evaluations, tags, security classifications). It uses the verb 'analyzes' with the resource 'domain' and lists concrete output categories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hash_search' or 'url_search' beyond the domain focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'identifying malicious or suspicious domains effectively,' which implies a security context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over sibling tools like 'ip_address_search' or 'url_search' for similar security analysis. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative tool references are included.

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