subdomain_enum

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

Adds significant value beyond annotations: explains pagination (next_calls capped at 5), how to handle large enumerations, and detailed interpretation of crtsh_status (ok vs timeout, etc.). Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld; description enriches with specific behaviors.

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?

Description is fairly long but well-organized: front-loads purpose, then adds behavioral details, rate limits, and output fields. Each sentence adds value, though some technical details could be slightly condensed. No waste.

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 sources, pagination, status interpretation), the description covers all necessary context: methods, rate limits, how to handle next_calls, and crtsh_status interpretation. Output schema exists, but description still explains return fields adequately.

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?

Only one parameter (domain) with schema description already clear ('Root domain to enumerate subdomains for'). Description does not add additional meaning beyond providing examples. Baseline 3 as schema coverage is 100%.

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 defines verb (discover), resource (subdomains), method (passive using CT logs + DNS brute-force), and distinguishes from siblings like dns_lookup or audit_domain by specifying the passive, non-intrusive nature.

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?

States purpose (map attack surface) and rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro). Implicitly guides when to use (passive enumeration) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. However, it adds interpretive guidance on crtsh_status.

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