pentest_osint_crtsh

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full behavioral load, and it does disclose the key trait that this is passive and the target is never contacted, which matters for scope and safety. It omits other relevant traits such as crt.sh rate limiting, expected latency, and failure behavior when a domain has no certificate records.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the defining behavioral trait. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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?

For a two-parameter passive OSINT tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and its non-intrusive nature but leaves the parameter contract and result shape entirely unexplained. An agent can select the tool but must guess at 'limit' semantics and what the results look like.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the structured data, and the description adds almost nothing — it only implies that 'domain' is the search target. The 'limit' parameter (default 500) is never mentioned, and no format guidance (e.g. bare domain vs. wildcard) is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover subdomains') plus the data source ('certificate transparency logs (crt.sh)'), which is more precise than the vague sibling names. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related pentest_recon_subdomains sibling, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 clause 'Passive: never touches the target' implies when to prefer this over active recon, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit. It never names pentest_recon_subdomains or states when to use that instead, so the when-to-use decision is left to inference.

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