website_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the exact information categories returned, the flat per-call cost, the network (Base mainnet), and the payment mechanism (automatic from PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY). It omits rate limits, error/failure behavior, and whether the upstream API needs its own credentials beyond the payer wallet.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then cost/payment. The middle sentence is a long enumeration but each item is a distinct datum the agent may care about, so there is little waste.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the report contains and the economic/payment side well enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps are error behavior and any latency or rate constraints.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example format. The description reinforces it with "for one domain" but adds no new syntax, normalization, or validation meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ("Fetch a website intelligence report for one domain") and enumerates the report's contents, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate from overlapping siblings like domain_profile, dns_lookup, or site_check, which also surface DNS and security data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (domain_profile, site_check, dns_lookup) that cover parts of the same ground. The cost note (0.01 USDC per call) implicitly signals this should not be called casually, which is useful but not a routing rule.

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