otx_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It indicates this is a read operation ('Look up') and describes the returned data, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the fact that no state is modified. For a lookup tool, this is minimal but not entirely absent.

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 followed by a short listing of return types. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant information.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough: it identifies the source (AlienVault OTX), the input domain, and the return categories. It does not describe output structure or edge cases, but is complete for basic usage.

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 documents it fully. The description does not add extra semantics beyond restating 'domain' and the example, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Look up threat intelligence for a domain via AlienVault OTX', which combines a specific verb with a resource. It also lists the return types ('pulse info, whois, reputation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like otx_ip and otx_hash by the domain focus.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a user needs threat intelligence for a domain. It provides context by naming the source (AlienVault OTX) and the output types, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools.

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