domain_hosting_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the method (resolves A record, performs reverse DNS, queries Team Cymru DNS) and the returned fields. However, it lacks caveats about error cases, timeouts, or rate limits, which prevents a 5.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: purpose first, followed by method, then outputs. Every sentence earns its place and is immediately informative.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return values. It lists all key outputs (IP, ASN, AS name, prefix, hosting provider) but omits potential error conditions or edge cases like NXDOMAIN.

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 no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so a 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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('hosting infrastructure details for a domain') with concrete outputs (IP, ASN, AS name, prefix, provider). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling domain_* tools like domain_whois or domain_reputation, which focus on other aspects.

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 usage when hosting infrastructure details are needed but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like dns_lookup or dns_reverse. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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