hackertarget_hostsearch

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

With no annotations, the description bears full transparency duty. It discloses the external API (HackerTarget) and a rate limit, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state safety or mention if any data is modified, though 'Find' suggests a safe query.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second provides a critical constraint. Very efficient.

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 simple subdomain finder with no output schema, the description adequately explains input (domain), action (find subdomains and IPs), and a constraint (rate limit). The return format is implied, which is sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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 description coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'Domain to search hosts for'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the tool finds subdomains and their IPs for a given domain via HackerTarget. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like hackertarget_reverseip or dns_lookup.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hackertarget_reverseip or other DNS tools. The only usage note is a rate limit (50 queries/day), which is helpful but does not replace comparative guidance.

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