bl_domain_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the inputs (domain) and outputs (score, contributing factors, verdict), but does not mention potential side effects, data source freshness, query latency, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing return values. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler, making it an exemplary model of brevity and clarity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, what inputs it takes, and what outputs it returns. It could optionally mention score calculation methodology or potential delay from DNS lookups, but these are not essential for invoking the tool correctly, so it is nearly complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra semantic details about the parameter (e.g., punycode, IP addresses, or format constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource: an aggregated domain risk score. It lists the contributing factors (DNSBL listings, domain age, DNSSEC presence, SPF/DMARC configuration) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform individual checks, making it an aggregate scoring tool.

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 implies when to use this tool by calling it 'aggregated' and listing multiple data sources, suggesting it's suitable for a holistic risk assessment. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over the individual sibling tools or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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