anomaly_domain_drift

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithm (HDBSCAN) and output type (leaderboard of recently changed domains). It does not mention output format, ordering, or any side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides context with a sibling tool. No extraneous 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, algorithm, and relationship to a complementary tool. However, it lacks details on how to interpret the leaderboard or any limitations, leaving some gaps.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline 4 applies.

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: it is an HDBSCAN-based leaderboard for domains with recently drifted blocking patterns, surfacing newly-blocked or newly-unblocked domains worldwide. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'anomaly_dbscan' by mentioning it complements the country-level DBSCAN leaderboard.

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 implicitly suggests usage: for a worldwide domain-level drift view, use this tool; for country-level, use the DBSCAN one. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other anomaly tools like 'anomaly_fused' or 'anomaly_leaderboard', and no exclusions are stated.

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