site-intel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but does disclose a genuinely useful trait beyond the schema: per-mode credit costs (overview 2, whois 1, dns 1, etc.). It does not say whether the operation is read-only, what permissions/auth are required, or what happens on lookup failure, so transparency is partial.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the capabilities and then the cost table; no filler sentences. The credit list is slightly repetitive with the repeated word 'credits' but remains dense and scannable.

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?

For a 2-parameter data-gathering tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to describe the shape of the returned intelligence and any constraints (e.g., can modes be combined, lookup failure behavior). The capability and cost coverage is good, but the return-side context is thin.

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 already 100% and baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by mapping each enum value of 'mode' to a credit cost, letting the agent reason about budget when choosing depth. That is value the schema does not carry.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get comprehensive domain intelligence') and enumerates the data classes returned: WHOIS, DNS, SSL, tech stack, email security, hosting. An agent can immediately tell what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from potential siblings such as 'domains' or 'scrape', which may overlap in scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings. The mode list with credit costs does imply a depth-versus-cost selection heuristic, so usage is inferable rather than stated. That places it at minimum-viable rather than clear.

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