get_intel_domain_history

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what data is returned, whether this is DNS history, WHOIS history, or threat history, or what account permissions are needed. With no output schema, the agent lacks important behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It earns its place by stating the basic purpose. The brevity is efficient, though it leaves out useful context that could have been added without making the description bloated.

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?

Although this is a simple one-parameter tool, the description is not complete enough because there is no output schema and no annotation. It should at least clarify what 'history intelligence' means and what kind of data the agent can expect. Without that, an agent cannot confidently distinguish this tool from related intel tools or anticipate the response.

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 100%, and the only parameter, account_id, is documented with 'The account ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. This is acceptable because the schema already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('domain history intelligence'), so an agent can tell this is a read operation for historical domain data. It is concise and slightly more specific than the raw tool name, though it does not define what 'history intelligence' actually includes. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_intel_domain or get_intel_whois mainly by the word 'history'.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_intel_domain, get_intel_whois, or get_intel_asn. There are no exclusions, conditions, or examples. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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