shodan_dns_domain

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Consumes 1 query credit', which is a useful behavioral constraint not present in annotations. It also notes the subdomain scope. However, it does not comment on pagination or result limits, though those are in the schema.

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 exactly two sentences: one for purpose and one for cost. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, with every sentence adding 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?

For a simple DNS lookup tool, the description covers purpose and cost, annotations cover safety, and the schema explains parameters. No output schema exists, but the description implies the return of DNS information. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 full descriptive coverage of all parameters (domain, page, type, history, maxResults), so the description does not need to explain them. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'DNS information for a domain', and includes 'subdomains' as scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_dns_resolve and shodan_dns_reverse, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'including subdomains' suggests it is for domain enumeration, it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is implied but not explicit.

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