Domain Trust Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that the tool may expose x402 utility pricing, which is a behavioral trait, but does not clarify what that entails or how it affects usage. This provides modest extra context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second adds context about pricing. While the second sentence is somewhat extraneous, it does not waste many words and the core information 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?

Given no output schema, the description lists the signals included but does not describe the report structure or return format. It is adequate for a composite read-only tool with good annotations, but lacks completeness on output details.

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 100%, with both parameters (url and timeout) having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the 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 clearly states it's a 'composite trust report' and lists the specific signals included (TLS, security.txt, headers, RDAP, DNS, uptime), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects, but could be more explicit about the output format.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this composite tool versus the individual utility tools (e.g., util_tls_inspect, util_security_txt_inspect). It lacks when-not-to-use criteria or alternative recommendations.

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