Hackertarget Hostsearch

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as rate limits, API key requirements, or external service dependency, which would have been valuable given the 'via HackerTarget' reference. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the core function and source efficiently, and every word contributes value.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, gaps remain: no domain format guidance and no mention of limitations or failure modes (e.g., rate limits from HackerTarget). Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects that it works but leaves important usage details to the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'domain' parameter. It does not clarify the expected format (bare domain vs. subdomain, protocol, etc.), leaving the agent to guess. The word 'hosts/subdomains' implies the domain is the target, but this is insufficient for a parameter with no schema 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 states a specific action ('Find hosts/subdomains with resolved IPs') and identifies the source ('via HackerTarget'). This distinguishes it from siblings like crtsh_search (certificate transparency) and dns_lookup_all (which likely returns raw DNS records) by source and output, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for subdomain enumeration. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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