site-explorer-domain-rating

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential limitations such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence provides a usage note. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and both sentences earn their place by adding value. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the usage note more seamlessly.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter semantics, and output expectations. While it states the purpose and a prerequisite, it does not adequately address the gaps left by missing structured data, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'domain or URL' and 'specific date,' which loosely map to 'target' and 'date' parameters, but does not explain the 'protocol' parameter or provide details on format, constraints, or examples. The description adds some meaning but insufficiently covers the three parameters, especially with no schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Retrieves the domain rating and related metrics for a specified domain or URL as of a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves'), resource ('domain rating and related metrics'), and scope ('for a specified domain or URL as of a specific date'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-metrics' or 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history', which may offer overlapping or related functionality.

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 includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.' This implies a prerequisite step but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-metrics' for broader metrics or 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history' for historical data). No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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