domain_fetch_domain_history

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, idempotent, 4-hour cache, source (crt.sh), and return format (issuer, validity, SANs, reverse chronological). No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence adds value, but the description is slightly long. However, it is well-structured with purpose first, then details, then usage guidance, and fallback.

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 single parameter and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers all contextual needs: what it does, output details, source, cache, use cases, and fallback.

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?

Adds full meaning for the single parameter 'domain' beyond the schema: format 'example.com' without protocol, and marks as required. Schema coverage 0% is compensated by thorough description.

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?

Explicitly states 'Fetch historical SSL certificate issuance for a domain from Certificate Transparency logs', uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain by specifying historical vs current.

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?

Clearly explains when to use (detect domain hijacking, audit) and when not (use domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain for current chain). Also provides a fallback for reporting gaps via report_feedback.

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