typo_full_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond a generic 'scan' by explicitly disclosing deduplication across techniques and the optional DNS resolution to filter to registered domains, adding useful behavioral context.

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 main action, and structured clearly. Every sentence adds value: the first lists the techniques, the second covers deduplication and the optional registration filter. No 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 effectively conveys the core behavior, techniques, dedup, and optional resolution. However, it does not specify output format or potential scale/performance implications; since there is no output schema, this would be useful for full completeness.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the purpose of check_registered: 'to report only registered domains', which clarifies the parameter's impact on output.

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 ('Run'), the exact resource ('all 7 typosquatting detection techniques'), and lists each technique. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like typo_homoglyph by emphasizing the full combined scan and deduplication.

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 a comprehensive scan across all techniques and highlights deduplication as a benefit over running individual typo_* tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over specific single-technique tools or provide conditions for use.

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