domain_dga_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what is evaluated (five specific characteristics) and what will be returned (a per-domain DGA probability score). It does not disclose potential side effects or error behavior, but this appears to be a pure analysis tool with no side effects, so the transparency is strong.

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 well-structured sentences. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds meaningful technical detail in the second. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every sentence earns its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the input and the output format. It lacks details on the score range or interpretation, but for a straightforward analysis tool with a simple input, this is sufficient. A score of 5 would require more context on expected output semantics or edge cases.

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% (one parameter, 'domains', described as 'List of domain names to analyze for DGA characteristics'). The description adds detail about the analysis methodology but not about input formatting (e.g., whether to include subdomains, protocol, or punycode). Since the schema already documents the parameter, a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('domains') with a clear goal (DGA characteristics). It lists concrete features (consonant ratio, bigram frequency, Shannon entropy, length, pronounceability) and states the output (per-domain DGA probability score), distinguishing it from sibling domain tools like domain_reputation or typo_soundsquat.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent would naturally select this tool when DGA detection is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of complementary tools. This is adequate but lacks the explicit 'when/when-not' that would earn a higher score.

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