domain_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the critical non-obvious trait: a 0.01 USDC charge per call on Base mainnet, auto-paid from PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY. That monetary side effect is exactly the kind of thing an agent must know before invoking. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or whether a failed call is still charged.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and payload, then appends the payment constraint. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 must convey the return shape; it names the three sections but not their structure or whether subdomains are paginated/truncated. Cost and auth are covered, which is the more important gap for a paid tool, but return-format detail is thin.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an inline example ('example.com'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the domain parameter itself; baseline 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+resource ('Fetch a domain profile') and enumerates the payload: registration basics, DNS summary, subdomains from certificate logs. This lets an agent see it overlaps with dns_lookup and website_intelligence but it never names those siblings to draw the line explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though dns_lookup and website_intelligence in the sibling list clearly overlap in scope. The agent must infer from the payload list alone whether to call this or the narrower tools.

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