Domain Report

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), explains default TXT filtering behavior and the include_all_txt parameter's effect, and mentions that response carries next_calls for chaining. No contradiction 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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 (2 params, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is comprehensive: covers purpose, usage context, filtering nuances, rate limits, chaining guidance, and return summary. No gaps remain.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds additional context for include_all_txt, explaining why default filtering strips vendor verification strings and when to set True. This adds value beyond the 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 the tool's function: 'Query DNS, WHOIS, SSL, subdomains, and threat intel for a domain in one call.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending audit_domain for live headers and tech stack, and by mentioning chaining with subdomain_enum, ssl_check, and tech_fingerprint.

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 states when to use this tool ('as a starting point for domain investigations') and when to use alternatives ('use audit_domain for live headers + tech stack'). Also provides chaining guidance using next_calls for standard recon depth without re-prompting.

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