get_domain_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes report contents and return values, but it fails to explicitly state that the operation is read-only, potential performance implications (e.g., multiple DNS lookups), error handling, or required permissions. The read-only nature is implied by the word 'report' but not declared.

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 three sentences long with a clear structure, front-loading the primary action and content list. The final sentence about returning both basic analysis and relationship data is mildly redundant with the first sentence, but overall it is concise and free of unnecessary 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of return content but lacks specifics on response format, error conditions, or pagination. For a report tool, this is adequate for basic selection, but it does not fully cover edge cases or operational details.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema, giving 100% coverage. The description adds a high-level summary of relationship types (SSL certificates, subdomains, historical data) but does not introduce new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema's enum and pattern. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 with the verb 'Get' and identifies the specific resource: a comprehensive domain analysis report. It enumerates included data (DNS records, WHOIS, SSL certificates, subdomains, historical data), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on URLs, files, or IPs.

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 the tool is for domain analysis, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over sibling tools or provide exclusions. It mentions optional relationships as a customization, but no direct alternative references or specific use cases are given, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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