scan_domain

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers: read-only, no destructive side effects, approximate timing (3-8s), and details of return (grade, score, issues, etc.).

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?

Four sentences with clear structure: purpose, output, behavior, alternatives. No wasteful 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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all return components (grade, score, issues, recommendations, sections) and suggests follow-up tools. Complete for a complex 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with description for 'domain' parameter. The tool description adds no extra semantic beyond what schema already provides, 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 'Run the fast IntoDNS.ai DNS and email security scan' and distinguishes it from siblings like get_everything_report and start_deep_scan.

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?

Explicitly says it's the default tool for scan evidence, mentions alternatives (get_everything_report for deeper, start_deep_scan for slower), and suggests post-scan actions (explain_issue, generate_dns_fix).

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