lookup_domain

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 the tool's output behavior comprehensively by enumerating returned content (AI stance, per-use-case policies, bot lists, signal presence, site metadata). However, it omits details on error handling, authentication, or rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, a bullet-like list of return items, and a parameter specification. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, parameter, and return content in detail. While it lacks usage context relative to siblings, that gap is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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%, but the description provides a dedicated 'Args' section defining 'domain' with a format example ('nytimes.com'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, giving clear semantic meaning to the single parameter.

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's function: 'Look up a domain's AI policy summary from the Maango registry.' The verb 'look up' and resource 'domain's AI policy summary' are specific, and the use of 'summary' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'lookup_domain_full'.

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 implies usage for retrieving a summary for a single domain, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like lookup_domain_full, search_domains, or check_permission. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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