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 it does disclose the analysis composition (DNS, email, DNSSEC, CAA, nameserver checks) and output shape. However it says nothing about latency/cost of running live DNS checks across up to 20 domains, partial-failure behavior per domain, or whether results are cached — operational traits an agent planning a call would want.

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; the batch scope comes first and the output preview follows via a colon-list. It is dense but every clause earns its place, with no restatement of the name or 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both the action and the return; it does describe the return (per-domain grade plus top findings). What is missing is only the edge-case behavior (partial results, failures on individual domains), which is a modest gap for a two-parameter tool.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the array/batch semantics of 'domains' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Audit several domains at once') plus the batch scope, which is what separates it from the single-target siblings like lookup_dns, enumerate_dns, check_email_security and check_takeover. It also previews the deliverable ('A–F grade per domain ... plus each domain's most serious findings'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 parenthetical 'e.g. every brand or country domain' implies the batch use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative for single-domain lookups, and no guidance on when the more targeted checks are preferable. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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