threat_cohosting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It describes the multi-step process (resolve, PTR, CT search, flagging) which is transparent for a read-like analysis. However, it does not clarify whether any data is persisted (e.g., 'flags' might imply storage), nor does it address errors or limitations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Analyzes', no redundant details. Every clause adds meaningful information about the tool's process and output.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'Flags hosting with suspicious co-hosted domains' but does not specify the output format (e.g., list, score, boolean). The process is described well, but the return value is ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 'domain'. The tool description adds context by explaining how the domain is used (resolution, PTR, CT), but does not add new parameter-level information beyond the schema. Baseline 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 what the tool does: analyzes domain co-hosting with specific techniques (IP resolution, PTR, CT logs) and flags suspicious co-hosted domains. This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_reverse or ct_search by combining these into a co-hosting analysis.

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 for co-hosting investigation but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like dns_reverse or threat_ip_to_domains. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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