report_domain

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses pricing ($1.00 USDC per call), caching (up to 1 hour), partial-success charging model, and the composed nature of the report, providing full transparency for an AI agent.

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 concise but comprehensive, front-loading the pricing and purpose, then listing components, use cases, and caching. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 and no annotations, the description provides ample context: pricing, data components, use cases, caching, and charging behavior. An agent can fully understand what to expect from the 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?

The single parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema (pattern, explanation). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that the domain is the input for the dossier, so 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 clearly states the tool composes a due-diligence dossier for a domain, listing specific data points (WHOIS, DNS, email, homepage, risk flags) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like domains_whois or network_dns that provide only single aspects.

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 lists several use cases (vendor vetting, KYC, phishing triage, onboarding) and mentions partial-success charging, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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