dns_intelligence__audit_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose what checks execute (DNS, email, DNSSEC, CAA, nameserver) and what comes back (per-domain grade plus top findings). It omits operational traits an agent would want, such as expected latency when auditing up to 20 domains, behavior on unresolvable domains, and whether live DNS queries are made.

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 opens with the action and follows with a colon-introduced payoff of what the agent gets. No filler; the enumeration of check types is dense but each item adds real information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description's output preview (grade per domain plus most serious findings) does meaningful work that structured fields don't cover. Remaining gaps are operational — failure modes for malformed domains and cost of large batches — rather than conceptual.

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%, so both parameters already carry their own documentation and the 3 baseline applies. The description adds light semantic framing for `domains` (brand/country groupings) but says nothing about `nameserverProbe` or how it changes results.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource in plural scope ("Audit several domains at once") and previews the output (A–F grade per domain plus most serious findings), which implicitly distinguishes it from single-domain siblings like lookup_dns or check_email_security. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Audit several domains at once (e.g. every brand or country domain) and compare them" implies the use case is bulk/comparative work, which is a reasonable usage cue. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and doesn't tell the agent to prefer lookup_dns or check_email_security for single-domain or single-check needs.

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