defender_get_domain_statistics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the statistics are scoped to 'this organization' and include first/last seen timestamps, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or the meaning of 'prevalence'. With annotations present, the added context earns a middle score.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds scope and key output fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description mentions output fields ('prevalence', 'first and last seen') but leaves 'prevalence' undefined—whether it is a count, percentage, or other metric. For a read-only statistics tool, an agent might benefit from knowing exactly what prevalence represents and the shape of the return value. The description is adequate but has a clear gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter ('Domain name.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter, such as format restrictions, case sensitivity, or examples. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the prevalence of a domain') and scopes it to 'this organization', with output fields ('first and last seen'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list-type tools like defender_get_domain_alerts or defender_get_domain_machines, but it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need domain prevalence statistics) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of preferring this over defender_get_domain_alerts or defender_get_domain_machines for different needs. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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