subdomains

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It does disclose that data comes from crt.sh public TLS certificates and warns about slowness. However, it does not mention output format, completeness limitations, or external dependency behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a relevant performance warning. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the key purpose, source, and a performance warning. It is missing response format and parameter format details, but it is adequate for basic invocation. Clear gaps remain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, and the description does not compensate. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., no scheme, whether subdomains are accepted, apex-only) or provide an example.

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 identifies what the tool returns (subdomains) and its data source (public TLS certificates via crt.sh). This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_lookup or tls_certificate, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Enumerate'.

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 a performance caveat ('Can be slow for large domains') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like recon_domain, dns_lookup, or tls_certificate. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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