get_hosted_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination ('page' and 'limit' parameters) and a default limit, which adds some context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or data freshness, which are important for a lookup tool. The description doesn't contradict any annotations, but it's insufficient for full transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter details into the main text, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 that there's an output schema (which covers return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is somewhat complete. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context like rate limits or error handling. For a lookup tool with pagination, more guidance on usage and limitations would improve completeness, but the output schema reduces the burden.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'ip' parameter as 'IP address to lookup', 'page' as 'Page number (starts at 0)', and 'limit' as 'Number of results per page (max 1000, default 100)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, covering all three parameters. However, it doesn't provide examples or format details (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6 for 'ip'), so it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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's purpose: 'Get domains hosted on an IP address.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('domains hosted on an IP address'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ip_hostname' or 'whois_lookup_by_ip', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'get_ip_hostname' or 'whois_lookup_by_ip' that might serve similar purposes. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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