audit_domain

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

Discloses default filtering of TXT records to security-relevant entries, the effect of include_all_txt, and that response includes next_calls. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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?

Three sentences delivering substantial information; slightly long but no redundancy. Could be split into a bulleted list for readability, but still efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return values (keys listed), chaining hints, rate limits, and differentiators. Output schema exists and is referenced. Complete for a complex multi-component 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: clarifies domain format (no protocol/path), explains default filtering behavior and rationale for include_all_txt, and notes that total_txt_records always emitted. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches both parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs a comprehensive domain audit combining domain_report, live HTTP security headers, and technology fingerprinting. Distinguishes from sibling domain_report by noting passive-only vs active checks.

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 when to use this tool vs domain_report, mentions chaining with subdomain_enum and ssl_check via next_calls, and provides rate limit and cost context (free 30/hr, Pro 500/hr).

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