contrastapi

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description discloses no behavioral traits: it does not indicate if this performs active scanning, passive lookup, or cached queries; whether it requires authentication; or what volume of data it returns.

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?

While brief, the description constitutes under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence provides no actionable information beyond the tool name itself, failing the 'every sentence earns its place' standard.

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 presence of many overlapping domain-related siblings, the lack of output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It must explain the report's scope, content structure, and parameter requirements to be usable.

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 0% (empty string for 'domain' parameter), and the description fails to compensate. It does not specify expected input format (FQDN, subdomain, punycode?), validation rules, or whether protocol prefixes (http://) should be stripped.

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 'Domain Report' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the resource (domain), it fails to specify what data the report contains (security, reputation, infrastructure?) or distinguish itself from siblings like whois_lookup, dns_records, or threat_intel.

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?

No guidance provided on when to select this tool versus the numerous domain-related alternatives (whois_lookup, dns_records, subdomain_enum, threat_intel, etc.). The agent cannot determine if this is a comprehensive report or a specific subset.

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