Exposed Admin Page Check

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses passive behavior (single first-page request per host), no logins or path guessing, no API key required, heavier rate limit (~1 minute), and that per-host detail and sensitive-file checks are withheld from this tool and exposed only to the verified owner via DNS TXT. That is exactly the kind of auth/scope/limit disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each clause (scope, asset classes, visibility limits, safety and rate constraints) carries information. The single dense paragraph with heavy em-dash apposition is slightly hard to scan, but there is no 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?

With output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description still adds the return shape (counts per category, bad/warn/ok verdict, remediation) and the visibility boundary between public and owner-only results. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose normalization rules (scheme, path, leading www. stripped) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or validity detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('map what an organisation exposes to the internet') and enumerates the asset classes it covers (subdomains via CT logs, admin screens, VPN logins, staging servers, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like subdomain_discovery and security_scan by framing output as exposure categories with a verdict.

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?

Explicit context for use: 'when a user wants to know their attack surface or after a breach in their sector.' However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g., subdomain_discovery, security_scan) or states when this tool should NOT be chosen, so routing among 23 siblings still requires inference.

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