inspect_domain_infra

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the data source (Cloudflare DNS-over-HTTPS) and that results reflect 'live' state, and 'inspect' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about rate limits, failure behavior for nonexistent domains, or whether lookups are cached.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the long parenthetical vendor list (OpenAI, Anthropic, Stripe, Slack, Atlassian, HubSpot, Google, Microsoft 365) is padded detail that most agents do not need to select or invoke the tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the essential work of enumerating what categories of data come back, which is critical since nothing else defines the return shape. Missing only edge-case behavior and response format details.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about acceptable formats (bare domain vs. URL, subdomains, IDN), which is the one gap an agent could plausibly hit.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with an enumerated resource scope (DNS, SPF/DMARC/MX, security headers, vendor verification TXT records), which is far more precise than the bare name. It implicitly separates itself from enrich_company_domain and audit_ai_search_readiness by focusing on live infrastructure records, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 by the subject matter: an agent can infer this is for checking a domain's live DNS/mail/security posture. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing guidance versus enrich_company_domain or audit_ai_search_readiness, which an agent would need to choose correctly.

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