Audit Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds rate limits (30/hr Free, 500/hr Pro) and token cost (6 tokens), plus next_calls behavior, providing extra transparency beyond 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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and efficient, but slightly dense as a single paragraph. Could benefit from more structure (e.g., bullet lists) for complex details like rate limits and filtering, but overall concise and informative.

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 tool complexity (combines multiple scans), description covers all essential aspects: purpose, filtering logic, usage guidance, chaining, rate limits, and return structure (explicitly lists output fields). No gaps.

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%. Description adds context: explains default TXT filtering (strips vendor verification strings) and when to set include_all_txt=True, going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Perform comprehensive domain audit' and explicitly lists combined components: domain_report, live HTTP security headers, technology fingerprinting. Distinguishes from sibling domain_report by specifying active vs passive assessment.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('Use when you need the full picture') and alternative ('use domain_report for passive-only assessment'). Also suggests chaining with subdomain_enum and ssl_check for further recon.

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