get_domain_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (a string with detection summary and relationships) and the effect of the relationships parameter. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error conditions, or any side effects, which is a minor gap for a report tool.

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 succinct and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful content without redundancy, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value sufficiently. It does not describe usage scenarios or explicit alternatives, but the context signals (sibling names) and clear parameter hints make this fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains 'domain' as the domain name to analyze and 'relationships' as an optional list of specific relationships to include, adding value beyond the raw schema. It could provide more detail on what relationships are valid, but it compensates adequately.

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 purpose: 'Get a comprehensive domain analysis report.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'domain analysis report' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on domains (vs URL, file, IP) and being a report (vs relationship-specific tools).

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear: use for a full domain analysis report. The optional 'relationships' parameter implies that for a single relationship lookup, get_domain_relationship might be sufficient, but this is not stated explicitly.

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