netintel_domain_age

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose concrete output semantics (creation date, age in years, first Wayback capture, snapshot count, maturity signal), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about missing/unregistered domains, error behavior, rate limits, or data sources.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the long em-dash enumeration of return values is verbose and the text is visibly truncated mid-sentence ('and…'), leaving the structure incomplete rather than tight.

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?

Because there is no output schema, enumerating return fields is genuinely valuable and partially completes the picture. However, the truncation, missing parameter format, and total absence of usage routing or failure-mode behavior leave it short of what a 1-param, annotation-free, output-schema-less tool needs.

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 single 'domain' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about expected format (bare domain vs URL, scheme handling, subdomain behavior). With one undocumented required parameter, the description should compensate but 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Determine a domain's age from registration data and archival history') and enumerates the exact outputs. It is clear what the tool does, but it never differentiates itself from heavily overlapping siblings such as netintel_whois_lookup, netintel_wayback_lookup, or netintel_domain_vet.

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 only guidance is the trailing rationale 'so agents can assess domain trustworthiness', which implies a purpose but names no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. With dozens of near-duplicate domain tools among the siblings, the absence of any explicit when-to-use routing is a real gap.

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