scan_domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context: parallel execution of checks and the nature of outputs (score, grade, findings). No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes key outputs and use cases. No wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple checks, outputs, and parameters), the description covers inputs, outputs, and use cases. It lacks details on limits or pagination, but those are not critical for a single-domain audit. Output schema is absent, but description compensates.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3.

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 performs a full DNS and email security audit for a single domain, listing specific checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.) and outputs (score, grade, findings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing comprehensiveness versus individual check tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use for a comprehensive single-domain audit, to get a domain's overall security grade, or to assess email security maturity.' It implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternative sibling tools for specific checks.

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