scan_domain_cyber_hygiene

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the checks performed and that results are scored for spoofing vulnerability with sales-oriented framing, and "Scan" conventionally implies a non-destructive read, but it never states return shape, whether the domain must resolve, or what the free tier limits are versus the pro key.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the scanned artifacts and closes with the two value outputs. Every clause adds information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read-only scan with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected and what is returned in concept (vulnerability scores and sales angles). The main residual gap is operational behavior, such as rate limits or failure modes, which matters more given the absence of annotations.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the proApiKey as the unlimited-audit credential. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses the specific verb "Scan" with an enumerated resource set (DNS SPF, DMARC, MX records, plus HTTP security headers HSTS/CSP/XFO) and states the outputs (spoofing vulnerability scoring and MSSP sales angles). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling domain audits, which cover WCAG/EAA and AI-LLM readiness rather than email/DNS security posture.

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 only implied: the framing of spoofing risk plus "MSSP sales angles" suggests it fits security-gap prospecting. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus the sibling audit tools, nor any exclusion such as domains without mail records.

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