report_full_audit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the audit runs and returns an executive summary and per-category findings, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or operational traits beyond the high-level action.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, and enumerates categories compactly without filler. 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope and return format via 'executive summary and per-category findings'. It could be more explicit about the detailed structure of findings, but it is complete enough for the complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with a clear description, so the baseline applies. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or format beyond the schema.

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 'Runs' and clearly identifies a unique resource: a comprehensive DNS security audit across all named categories. It enumerates the categories, which distinguishes it from category-specific sibling tools like dnssec_full_audit and email_full_audit.

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 conveys clear context: use when a whole-domain security audit across resolution, DNSSEC, email, hijack, CT, blocklists, and infrastructure is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier.

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