enrich_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the contact email is cached and data is shared across users, implying a shared cache. However, it does not mention potential staleness, rate limits, or behavior for unknown domains.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and specific output facts. Every sentence adds value, including the performance note about shared data.

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?

The description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and mentions caching behavior, which is helpful given no output schema. It could add error handling or unknown-domain behavior, but for a simple 1-parameter tool, it is largely complete.

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 schema already provides a full description for the 'domain' parameter (bare hostname). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns known facts about a domain, listing specific outputs (Moz Domain Authority, cached contact email, homepage title/description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_email or list_backlinks, as no other tool focuses on domain-level enrichment.

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 implies usage for domain enrichment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions data sharing and instant results as a benefit but lacks guidance on exclusions or alternative tools.

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