lookup_domain_full

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It enumerates the returned data fields (robots.txt, ai.txt, llms.txt, TDM-Rep, crawl rules, meta tags, content signals), giving the agent a solid mental model. It doesn't mention side effects or failure modes, but as a read-only lookup, the disclosure is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return categories, and an 'Args' section handles the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or wordy filler.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, output contents, and the lone parameter. An output schema exists, which handles return-value structure details, so the description doesn't need to over-explain. It lacks edge-case information, but for a detailed lookup tool with rich output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only a 'domain' property with no description. The tool description compensates by defining it as 'The domain to look up' with an example ('nytimes.com'). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't specify constraints like whether subdomains are accepted or if a protocol is needed, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get full raw policy data for a domain from the Maango registry.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_domain by explicitly stating it is 'much more detailed', leaving no ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 when to use this tool by emphasizing its comprehensive detail and contrasting it with lookup_domain. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need full data' as a directive or list exclusions, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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