inspect_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the return fields (score 0-100, verdict, categories, report link) and gives a genuinely important interpretation caveat that an 'Unknown' result means no assessment exists, not that the domain is safe. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and coverage limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, then the critical 'Unknown' caveat, then usage. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating return fields and warning about the misleading 'Unknown' value. The main missing piece is how this tool relates to its near-identical siblings, which an agent needs in order to choose correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully (domain name, e.g. example.com). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource and its purpose precisely: a domain reputation assessment that returns score, verdict, categories, and report link. However, it never differentiates itself from the closely-named siblings check_domain_safety and get_domain_reputation, leaving an agent unable to tell which of the three to call.

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?

"Use this tool when users ask about site reliability, trust, or safety" gives an implied usage context, but that same phrasing arguably applies equally to check_domain_safety. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative-routing are given, which is a real gap given three near-identical siblings.

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