Recon for several domains

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

Adds substantial traits beyond the annotations: 3-way concurrency, a 90s per-domain deadline, multi-minute worst case, retained source failures/coverage, and that it starts without direct web connections. This meaningfully extends the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotation profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then timing and routing. Every sentence carries signal; 'Starts without direct web connections' is slightly ambiguous but earns its place as a default-behavior cue.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing report contents (source failures, coverage), timing behavior, and default connection mode. An agent has enough to call and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so domains, include_active, and include_subdomains are fully documented in-schema. The description restates batch size and the no-direct-connection default but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+scope ('Check up to ten domains') with concurrency detail, and explicitly distinguishes itself from compare_domains. An agent can tell this is the batch recon tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes one case ('Use compare_domains when the question is how sites are related'), but never contrasts with recon_domain, its obvious single-domain sibling. Clear context with a missing alternative and no explicit exclusions.

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