domain_report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details such as default TXT filtering (only security-relevant), stripping vendor verification strings, and the emission of total_txt_records and next_calls (always or conditionally). No contradictions with 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?

The description is relatively long but front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value: filtering details, chaining guidance, rate limits, and return summary. Could be slightly more concise but is well-organized 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 the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, filtering, chaining, rate limits), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, return contents, and rate limits. Output schema exists for return structure, so no gap there.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description adds extra context for include_all_txt, explaining the filtering rationale and examples of stripped strings (e.g., google-site-verification), which aids agent decision-making. Domain parameter description is already clear in schema.

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 clearly states it queries DNS, WHOIS, SSL, subdomains, and threat intel for a domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like audit_domain (live headers + tech stack) and dns_lookup, whois_lookup, etc., by offering an aggregated one-call solution.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use as a starting point for domain investigations; use audit_domain for live headers + tech stack.' Also provides chaining instructions for next_calls and mentions rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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