scan_domain

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it forces a fresh scan, caches results for one minute, returns statuses per check, and includes fix records. No contradictions with 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 concise (3 sentences) yet comprehensive. It front-loads the core action and then details the checks, caching behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (seven checks, caching, fix records, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, what parameters to provide, and when to use it. It addresses potential user needs for understanding the return structure and caching semantics.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds valuable semantics: examples (example.com), accepted formats (bare registrable names, subdomains), exclusions (scheme, path, port), and Unicode normalization to punycode. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal 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?

The description clearly states the tool forces a fresh scan of a domain and returns a full report with seven specific checks. It uses specific verbs ('force', 'scan', 'return') and resource ('domain'). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_report, which is explicitly mentioned as an alternative for cached results.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you need current state; use get_report when a recent cached answer will do.' It also explains the caching behavior for repeat scans within a minute, offering clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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