get-subdomains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what format the subdomains are returned in. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what format the subdomains are returned in, whether there are pagination considerations, or what happens with invalid ENS names. For a query tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values and error conditions.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'The ENS name to query for subdomains'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but earns no extra credit for enhancement.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'subdomains for an ENS name', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get-all-records' or 'resolve-name' by focusing specifically on subdomains. However, it doesn't specify whether this returns direct subdomains only or includes nested ones, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-all-records' (which might include subdomain data) or 'resolve-name' (which resolves names to addresses). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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