stealer_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool requires an API key and indicates what it returns, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention rate limits, or discuss any side effects or limitations. While 'search' implies safety, more detail could be given.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with return details and a prerequisite. No redundant or extraneous words.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core aspects: what it searches, what it returns, and an authentication requirement. It could be more complete by explaining result format or limitations, but it is adequate 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 only one parameter, 'domain', and the schema description fully explains it. The tool description reinforces this by saying 'by domain,' but adds no substantial new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 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 tool's purpose: 'Search Hudson Rock Cavalier for stealer log entries by domain.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Hudson Rock Cavalier'), and specifies the scope ('by domain'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stealer_email and stealer_ip.

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 implies when this tool should be used by specifying that it searches by domain and returns compromised machines, credentials, and malware details. It also notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., stealer_email or stealer_ip) or state when not to use it.

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