new_subdomains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the ordering (newest first), the data provenance (first certificate appearance in the window), and the enrichment fields (product-like name and environment words).

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. The front-loaded phrase 'Raw evidence' is somewhat vague, but the sentence remains compact and informative.

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 output schema and annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, the tool has four closely related siblings and the description provides no routing guidance, which is a meaningful contextual gap for selection among subdomain-related tools.

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 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter semantics. The description does not explain domain, days, limit, response_format, or include_infrastructure, but the schema already documents most of these.

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 resource and filtering criterion: hostnames whose first certificate appeared in the given window, ordered newest first. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like subdomain_timeline or hostname_history, and it lacks an action verb, so it falls short of a perfect 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling tools or the conditions under which raw new-subdomain evidence is preferred over a timeline or history view.

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