stealer_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the API key requirement and the type of data returned, but does not mention rate limits, pagination, error behavior, or the read-only nature of the operation. The description is adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic function.

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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, output, and prerequisites. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: purpose, input, output type, and authentication. It lacks some edge-case details but is largely complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description adds the API key requirement but provides no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Search'), the data source ('Hudson Rock Cavalier for stealer log entries'), the scope ('by domain'), and the output ('compromised machines, credentials, and malware details'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stealer_email and stealer_ip by focusing on domain-based lookup.

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 states what the tool does and the prerequisite (API key), but does not explicitly explain when to use this vs alternatives. The domain parameter and name imply usage for domain-based stealer log searches, which differentiates it from email or IP based siblings, though no direct 'when-not-to-use' guidance is given.

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