search_gov_domains

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

Annotations mark it as read-only and open-world, which is consistent. The description adds significant detail: client-side filtering over a CSV, exact match counts, exclusion of security contact emails, error behavior (throws on 4xx), and potential schema drift. This goes well beyond annotation hints.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose statement. While it is relatively long, each sentence provides essential information (e.g., scope values, filter behavior, source honesty). It is efficient but could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists the fields returned per row. It covers data source, filtering mechanics, error handling, and schema drift. For an 8-parameter search tool with no required params, this is thorough and addresses likely questions.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description reinforces these with examples (e.g., 'veterans' for organization, 'cdc.gov' for domain) and lists output fields (domain, domainType, etc.). This adds value, especially since there is no output schema.

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 specifies the tool searches the authoritative US .gov domain registry (CISA get.gov) to resolve organization ownership, enumerate federal agencies, and map SLED entities. The verb 'search' and resource are clear, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools that focus on contracts, awards, or other government data.

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 states when to use: for resolving domain ownership, enumerating federal agencies, and marketing targeting. It also clarifies that security contacts are excluded and that errors throw rather than returning empty results. Although no explicit alternatives are given, the tool's unique purpose makes this less necessary.

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