get_domain_intel_bulk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns risk scores and categories but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, maximum batch size, error handling for invalid domains, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is silent on these critical aspects.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and output, then adds a practical use case. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should clarify response structure, limits, and edge cases. It mentions the key outputs (risk scores and categories) but omits details like per-domain ordering, error behavior, or any batch size restrictions. This is adequate for a minimal tool but not fully complete.

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 (domains and account_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that multiple domains are handled. It does not provide examples, formatting details, or constraints beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (get threat intelligence), the resource (multiple domains), and the output (risk scores and content categories). It also distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_domain_intel by emphasizing 'multiple domains at once', making it unambiguous for an agent to select.

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 use case ('batch assessment of suspicious domains found in logs') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_domain_intel for single domains. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the sibling list.

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