osint_domain_recon

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

No annotations present. The description discloses sources and that no API keys are required, which is helpful. However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or idempotency traits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all key points concisely. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and lists specific sources without unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema and moderate complexity (multi-source), the description lists sources but does not explain return format, result structure, or pagination. This is sufficient for basic understanding but incomplete for an agent needing to parse results.

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 single parameter 'domain' is described in both schema and description similarly. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it is a quick domain reconnaissance tool combining multiple free sources (DNS, WHOIS, crt.sh, HackerTarget, email security). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup, whois_domain, and crtsh_search by promising a consolidated result.

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 broad, quick recon without needing separate calls to individual sources. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusions, which is a minor gap.

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