get_domain_technologies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns detection results (a read operation) and lists example output categories. However, it doesn't mention constraints like domain format requirements, rate limits, or whether the scan is live/historical. It adds some transparency but not rich context.

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 action verb and resource. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema) and the description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: it knows what to pass (domain) and roughly what to expect (a list of technologies). It could be more explicit about the output structure, but for a detection tool this is sufficient.

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 100% for the 'domain' parameter, which is already described as 'The domain to analyze.' The description doesn't add further meaning like formatting examples (e.g., with/without protocol). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Detect technologies used by a domain.' It lists concrete output categories (CMS, analytics, CDN, frameworks) which distinguishes it from all sibling tools (SEO/keyword focused). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from siblings like get_page_lighthouse. The only implied usage is that it detects technologies, which is tautological with the name.

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