domain_newly_registered

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (CT logs) and the return type (domains with certificate issuance dates). However, it does not clarify that 'newly registered' is an inference from certificate issuance rather than actual WHOIS registration data, nor does it mention limitations such as CT log coverage or the default lookback period (though 'days' is in the schema). This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. No wasted words; every clause contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, methodology, and return value. It lacks explicit distinction from CT-related siblings (e.g., ct_search) and could clarify the 'newly registered' heuristic, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'pattern' and 'days' have descriptive text in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only loosely referencing 'pattern' via 'matching a pattern' and 'recently issued' aligning with 'days'. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('CT logs'), and a clear objective ('discover newly registered domains'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ct_search that may also search CT logs but not specifically for newly registered domains. It also mentions the output ('Returns domains with certificate issuance dates'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the use case: when you want to discover newly registered domains via CT logs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like ct_search, domain_age, or domain_whois, nor does it provide exclusions. The 'to discover newly registered domains' part gives some context but no explicit guidance.

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