batch_scan

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context about version stamps (scoringModelVersion vs dnsChecksPackageVersion independence) and instructs to record scoringConfigHash. No contradictions. It could have mentioned caching behavior (related to force_refresh) but not required given annotations.

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?

Well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The version stamp paragraph is essential to prevent misuse, so no fluff. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the key return values (score, grade, finding counts). It also covers usage distinctiveness and the version gotcha. Lacks explicit response structure or error handling, but sufficient for a batch tool with rich annotations.

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% and descriptions for each parameter are present. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it repeats the max-10 domain limit and mentions output fields, but that's about return values, not parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Bulk-scan up to 10 domains in parallel. Runs a full security audit on each domain...' and names the return fields (score, NIST-aligned letter grade, finding counts). It also distinguishes from compare_domains, making the tool's scope clear.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when you want to audit multiple domains at once' and notes distinctness from compare_domains, a side-by-side analysis. It does not explicitly exclude single-domain scans (e.g., scan_domain), but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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