Audit Domain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), token cost (6), output structure (next_calls with specific conditions), and filtering behavior for DNS TXT records. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is concise yet information-dense. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, output structure, and rate limits. No fluff.

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 the output schema existence, full parameter coverage, and rich annotations, the description completes the picture. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter details, and chaining, making it fully actionable for an AI agent.

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 both parameters described. The description adds significant context: for include_all_txt, explains default filtering, why default strips vendor verification strings, and when to set True. For domain, reiterates format requirement. This goes beyond the 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?

The description explicitly states 'Perform comprehensive domain audit: combines domain_report + live HTTP security headers + technology fingerprinting.' It clearly identifies the verb 'audit' and resource 'domain,' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_report (passive-only) and subdomain_enum/ssl_check (chained tools).

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 directly states when to use: 'Use when you need the full picture (recon + active checks); use domain_report for passive-only assessment.' It also provides chaining guidance with subdomain_enum and ssl_check, and differentiates from sibling tools like domain_report.

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