domain_analytics_technologies_domain_technologies

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 states the tool returns a list of technologies but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading key details like output format.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values (e.g., what 'list of technologies' entails), potential errors, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single required parameter 'target' as a domain name. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'get a list of technologies used in a particular domain.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('technologies'), and scope ('particular domain'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain_analytics_technologies_available_filters' or 'domain_analytics_whois_overview,' which might offer related domain analytics functions.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'domain_analytics_whois_overview' for domain information or other analytics tools. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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