get_everything_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: '~5-15s latency depending on backend cache state', 'Read-only, no domain mutation', 'No auth, no side effects.' This goes beyond annotations by warning about latency and reaffirming the non-mutating, side-effect-free behavior. There is no contradiction with the 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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and scope, the second covers latency and safety, and the third gives usage guidance with alternatives. It is well-organized, front-loaded, and free of filler or 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates the covered domains (DNS, email, web/HTTPS, blacklist, sender requirements, citation URLs), states the latency, declares no auth/side effects, and directs users to alternatives based on their needs. For a complex report generator, this gives an AI agent sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions 'no URL, path, or port' implicitly but that is detailed in the schema. The format parameter is also fully described in the schema. The description adds little value here beyond serving as an overview.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Generate the complete live IntoDNS.ai report covering DNS, email authentication, web/HTTPS, blacklist reputation, sender requirements, and canonical citation URLs in a single call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_domain and get_email_test by emphasizing the comprehensive, all-in-one 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks for everything, the full picture, or a deep current-state summary; use scan_domain for a faster default scan, or create_report_snapshot when the result must remain immutable for audit/ticket use.' This names alternative tools and the conditions for choosing them, making the decision clear.

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