get_domain_intel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns risk scores, content categories, and DNS information, which gives some insight into output. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. This adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by return contents, then a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention any permission or account prerequisites, but the parameter suggestions cover the account ID. Overall, it is nearly complete for a lookup 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 coverage is 100%, with both 'domain' and 'account_id' already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get security intelligence for a domain') and enumerates concrete return contents (risk scores, content categories, DNS information). It is clearly differentiated from siblings like get_ip_intel by domain focus and further reinforced by the use case of investigating suspicious domains. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 usage context: 'Useful for investigating suspicious domains found in referrer headers or access logs.' This gives an agent a concrete scenario for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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