lookup_domain_technologies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the credit cost and outlines the response structure (category and site count), but does not address edge cases like invalid domains, empty results, or rate limits beyond cost.

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 two sentences, with the main action in the first and a use case plus cost in the second. Every sentence provides value, with no redundancy.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and high schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose, output content, and usage scenario. It falls short of full completeness by not explicitly addressing alternative tools or failure modes, but overall it is adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both 'domain' and 'limit' with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, merely restating that a domain is input.

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 tool's function: given a domain, list detected technologies with category and usage count. It provides a specific use-case question ('what is this site built with?') and implicitly differentiates from siblings like lookup_technology by focusing on the domain rather than a single technology.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool via 'Use this to answer...' but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. It provides a clear scenario but lacks exclusion criteria.

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