Domain capability stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It explicitly declares 'Read-only', describes the two behavioral modes (per-domain record vs aggregate), and discloses a specific edge case: aggregate mode reports `truncated: true` when the internal scan cap is hit. It also tells the agent what data categories to expect beyond what the output schema covers.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, data contents, mode selection, safety, and truncation edge case, in that order. It is longer than minimal, and the inline enumeration of stat categories is heavy, but nothing is redundant with the schema, so the length is justified.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything: what it does, what data it reports, how to switch between per-domain and aggregate modes, the read-only safety profile (compensating for absent annotations), and the truncation flag. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already explains the omit-for-aggregate behavior, so the description largely restates it. It adds marginal value by describing what each mode returns (worst failing domains, seen-but-never-fetched count), but that is output context rather than new parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Read the ultrasearch-mcp domain capability database', then enumerates exactly what data it exposes (per-tier success rates, llms.txt/robots presence, metadata reachability, search appearances). This clearly differentiates it from the action-oriented siblings (search, fetch_url, crawl_site, clear_cache) — it is the only stats/read tool among them.

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 gives concrete mode-selection guidance: provide `hostname` for one domain's record, or omit it for an aggregate. It also states the tool is Read-only, which implies when it fits (inspection) versus the mutating siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when-not-to-use it, so it does not reach a 5.

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