scan_domain

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses the scan is passive (受動), a meaningful non-intrusiveness trait, and that it saves reports, which gives concrete substance to readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. However, it does not disclose whether the scan is asynchronous, how long it may run, or that enabling Shodan invokes a third-party API with rate-limit/cost implications. No contradiction 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?

A single, efficiently worded sentence with the action front-loaded (passively investigate the apex domain) and the outcome stated at the end; no wasted words. It is slightly terse for a tool with seven parameters, but as a concise front-loaded definition it is well structured.

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?

While an output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is too thin for a tool of this complexity. It leaves unexplained the parameter behavior (Shodan, DNS skipping, host limits, timeouts), whether scanning blocks or returns asynchronously, and what side effects re-running produces. An agent could select the tool but could not invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 14% — only the domain parameter is documented — yet the description adds no meaning for the six undocumented parameters (skip_dns, max_hosts, enable_shodan, max_api_pages, timeout_seconds, max_shodan_host_lookups). The description merely echoes 'apex domain' from the schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb (受動調査する — passively investigate), a specific resource (apex domain), and a concrete outcome (returns saved report identifiers and their count). This clearly separates it from the sibling list/get tools such as list_reports and get_report_summary, which operate on existing reports, whereas scan_domain is the action that produces them.

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 states only what the tool does and gives no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools. It names no alternatives, states no when-not-to-use conditions, and offers no prerequisites; the domain input restriction (no URL/IP/wildcard) appears in the schema rather than as usage direction in the description.

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