domain_reputation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool queries DNS blocklists, checks CT logs, and evaluates domain age, and returns a composite score. This is a good disclosure of the main operations, but it lacks details on potential limitations like rate limits or external service dependencies.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Multi-source domain reputation check'), then enumerate the data sources, and finally state the output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately notes that a 'composite reputation score' is returned, but it does not explain how the score is computed or what the range/meaning is. However, for a single-parameter tool with a well-defined purpose, the description is largely 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 schema fully describes the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Multi-source domain reputation check.' It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'domain reputation,' and lists the specific sources (DNS blocklists, CT logs, domain age) that distinguish it from single-source siblings like bl_check_dnsbl or domain_age.

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 this tool is for a comprehensive reputation assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of when a single-source check would be preferable or when this tool is not appropriate.

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