Investigate a website

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: it contacts the live site, reads bounded HTML, may take over a minute on slow archives, treats page text as untrusted data, and explicitly cannot verify deliveries/reviews/ownership or assign a safe/scam score.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the collection scope leads, followed by return shape, then runtime and limitation caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the three-line block is close to the ceiling for its value.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly summarizes the return ('concrete signals with evidence paths and explicitly missing checks'). Combined with the runtime, safety-boundary and untrusted-data notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this complex tool.

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%, so the schema already fully documents url, follow_legal and reference_domain. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Collect page details, ... domain registration, DNS, email security, HTTP, TLS and ... Wayback snapshots'), which clearly frames it as a broad reconnaissance aggregator. It distinguishes itself from the many single-signal siblings (dns_lookup, wayback, tls_certificate) by scope, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the aggregation scope rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the one-shot comprehensive check, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead for...'. The stated limitations (cannot verify deliveries/reviews/ownership, no safe/scam score) are capability boundaries, not routing guidance.

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