audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares read-only behavior, the exact set of paths probed, up to 10 GETs, bounded body samples, per-probe timeout, no retries, and the need to budget the call accordingly. This gives an agent unusually complete behavioral context.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the audit purpose and output format, then adds read-only status and probing behavior. The long parenthetical about exact paths is detailed but earns its place for a network-audit tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the output nature well: each check yields PASS/WARN/FAIL with evidence and fixes, rolled into an A-F grade. It also details request behavior, though it leaves some parameter-level detail and auth expectations implicit.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies that 'domain' is a single domain and that 'timeout' belongs to each probe, but it does not specify the domain format, timeout unit, valid range, or default, leaving important parameter semantics undocumented.

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: an owner-side agent-access audit of a domain, and enumerates the checks and output format. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like probe_url or scan_exposure.

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 implies this is for comprehensive domain-level audits and warns to budget the call because it may make up to 10 GETs. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of probe_url, classify, or scan_exposure, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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