stealer_domain

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds the API-key authentication requirement plus the shape of the returned data (compromised machines, credentials, malware details). It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but the added auth and return-content context is meaningful.

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 short sentences with no redundancy: purpose and scope first, return contents second, prerequisite last. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields and states the required API key, which is the main operational prerequisite. The only gap is pagination guidance around the cursor, which is a minor omission for a 2-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain, cursor) are already documented in the schema with format examples and length bounds. The description adds no syntax, format, or cursor-usage detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search), resource (stealer log entries), source (Hudson Rock Cavalier), and scoping key (by domain), plus what the result contains. The 'by domain' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling stealer_email and stealer_ip tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'by domain' scope, which tells an agent this is the domain-oriented variant among the stealer_* siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to prefer stealer_email or stealer_ip instead.

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