osint_domain_recon

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether lookups are passive or trigger active scanning, whether rate limits or API keys apply, how long the multi-source lookup takes, or how failures in one sub-lookup (e.g., WHOIS) are reported. Only the word "public" hints at passive OSINT.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the data sources immediately, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity is partly the cause of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description does enumerate the three intelligence categories. What is missing relative to the crowded osint_* sibling set is any routing guidance or input-format clarification, leaving the definition only minimally viable.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether the argument expects a bare domain, a hostname, or a full URL with scheme/path, nor how a URL input would be normalized — a real ambiguity given the parameter is literally named domain_or_url.

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 names a specific verb ("Gather") and a concrete resource set: SSL certificate validity/issuer, DNS resolution, and WHOIS/RDAP. That is more specific than the name alone. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as osint_dns_audit, osint_ip_lookup, or osint_tech_stack, which plausibly cover the same DNS and certificate ground.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping osint_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must guess whether this is the broad first-pass recon tool or a duplicate of osint_dns_audit.

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