domain_intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'free taste tier' with rate limits and explains how to unlock higher usage. It implies a read-only, non-destructive behavior (gathering intelligence). Could add details like data freshness or API dependencies, but overall sufficient for a non-critical tool.

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?

The description is two sentences, with the key purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value: the categories list, rate limit info, and env variable hint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity implied by 'domain intelligence' covering multiple categories (mail provider, deliverability, tech stack, metadata, signals), the description is too brief. It lacks any detail on return values, structure, or example outputs. An output schema is absent. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more context is needed to set expectations.

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 input schema has one parameter 'domain' with description 'The domain to analyze', covering 100% of parameters. The description adds that the tool analyzes a domain for various categories, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides 'domain intelligence' and lists specific categories: mail provider, deliverability, tech stack, metadata, signals. It uses a specific verb-resource combination, though it could more explicitly state the action (e.g., 'analyze' or 'retrieve'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_email or dns_lookup by offering a comprehensive view, but does not explicitly contrast 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 mentions rate limits (20 calls/day/IP) and how to increase them via the ALLY_KEY env variable, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to siblings (e.g., 'Use domain_intel for a broad overview; for specific checks like email verification, use verify_email'). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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