threat_actor_infra

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states the external sources (Team Cymru, RDAP) and the correlation logic (shared nameservers, mail servers, IPs). It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but for a read-only intelligence tool, this level of detail is good.

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, directly front-loaded with the core purpose and supporting detail. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's key capabilities: infrastructure data collection (NS, MX, IP, ASN, registrar) and cross-referencing for related domains. Given the simple schema and absence of an output schema, this is adequately complete, though it could mention whether results are returned as a list or include confidence scoring.

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 has full coverage for the single parameter `domain` with a clear description. The tool description does not add new parameter details beyond the schema, but it reinforces the domain's role as the starting point for infrastructure mapping. This aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 function with a specific verb ('Maps') and resource ('domain infrastructure fingerprint'), enumerating the specific data types (NS, MX, IP, ASN via Team Cymru, registrar via RDAP). It also highlights the cross-referencing capability to discover related domains, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `domain_whois` or `threat_passive_dns`.

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 establishes clear usage context: mapping a domain's infrastructure and cross-referencing shared infrastructure to identify related domains. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough to infer appropriate use cases. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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