get_domain_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not mention any limitations, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since this is a read operation, the lack of explicit read-only status is a gap, and there is no discussion of potential errors or data scope.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output, followed by a practical use case. There is no extraneous content, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return data and provides a usage scenario. It lacks details about pagination or authentication, but these are not critical for a basic lookup and the use case is clearly stated.

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 100%, with both parameters (domain and account_id) having descriptive text. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline 3. It does not explain why account_id is needed or how it influences the query.

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 tool retrieves historical threat data for a domain and specifies the returned data types (past and current security threat categories and content classifications). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the use case for checking malicious behavior patterns makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool ('checking if a domain has a pattern of malicious behavior over time'), which guides selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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