domain_technologies

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that this is a SANDBOX returning dummy data with no payment, enumerates the returned JSON fields, warns that title/description are third-party web content to be treated as data not instructions, and states contact details are deliberately omitted. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and none are derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then sandbox and safety caveats — a sensible ordering. The field enumeration is slightly listy, but since there is no output schema it earns its place; no sentence is filler.

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 and only one parameter, the description supplies the return shape, the sandbox behavior, and the prompt-injection and privacy caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response safely.

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% and the single 'domain' parameter already documents URL reduction and IP/port rejection, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden for a one-parameter tool.

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 resource ('technologies a website uses') with concrete sub-types (CMS, analytics, servers, frameworks, marketing tools) and names the data source (DataForSEO Domain Analytics Technologies). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like domain_overview or website_check, which imply different outputs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to see which CMS, analytics or marketing tools a competitor or prospect runs', giving a clear use-case context. However, it never names an alternative or a when-not-to-use condition (e.g., versus domain_overview or website_content), leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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