get_report

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description complements them by disclosing the conditional one-time scan behavior and the inclusion of scanned_at for staleness assessment. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the key usage distinction, but it repeats the same get_report-versus-scan_domain guidance at the start and end. Phrases like 'cheap first look', 'cheap read', and 'right default' also overlap, adding mild redundancy without much new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining the report structure: seven checks, each with status, observed record, and fix record, plus scanned_at. It also covers the conditional scan behavior, making the tool sufficiently described for reliable invocation.

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 already provides full parameter coverage with detailed domain format guidance including punycode normalization. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that the tool operates on a domain, so the schema carries the burden.

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 returns a stored domain report and conditionally scans if none exists. It explicitly distinguishes get_report from scan_domain by naming both and describing their relationship, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use get_report when a recent report is enough and scan_domain when the state must be re-read now. It also names a concrete example, after a DNS change, where scan_domain is preferred, making the decision rule actionable.

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