netintel_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is an aggregated 0-100 score framed as a 'safe to do business with this domain?' verdict, and it names the underlying signals. However it says nothing about cost/latency (composite calls are usually heavier than single-signal calls), caching, failure behavior when a component signal is unavailable, or how the score should be interpreted.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the deliverable ('Composite 0-100 trust/risk score') and then justifies it with the signal list; no filler. The text is visibly truncated mid-clause ('verdict with…'), which prevents a higher mark.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the interface — it names what goes in at a high level and what the headline result is, but omits the composition details of the returned score (sub-scores, thresholds, verdict bands) and any guidance for interpreting a mid-range score. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% — the single 'domain' parameter has no description — and the visible description says nothing about the expected format (bare hostname vs. URL, www/subdomain handling, IDN/punycode). For a low-coverage schema the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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+resource: a composite 0-100 trust/risk score for a domain, and enumerates the signal sources (domain age, SSL/TLS, DNS health, email auth, IP reputation, cert transparency). The phrase 'in one call' distinguishes it implicitly from the atomic siblings (netintel_domain_age, netintel_ssl_analyze, netintel_email_auth), but it never names or contrasts the competing aggregate siblings (netintel_domain_vet, netintel_domain_report, netintel_domain_appraise), so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

'In one call' hints that this replaces multiple single-signal lookups, which implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing between it and the many other domain-rating siblings. Usage is implied, not stated.

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