search_by_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds only that the search matches subdomains, but omits important behavior such as the meaning of 'recent' (e.g., time window), result ordering, pagination, or its read-only nature. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the subdomain-matching detail adds behavioral value without bloating the text.

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?

This is a relatively simple search tool with an output schema, but the description lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral trait (subdomain matching), yet leaves gaps that could confuse an agent trying to invoke it correctly, especially given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain 'domain', 'days', or 'size' beyond a vague hint that scans are 'recent'. The defaults are present in the schema but their meaning is left to inference, which is inadequate at this coverage level.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource as 'recent scans of a domain', with an explicit note that it matches the domain and its subdomains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_ip, search_by_asn, and search_by_hash, which target different resource types.

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 is provided on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_scans, search_by_ip, or search_by_asn. The description implies domain-based search but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or a comparison with sibling tools.

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