check_domain_probes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool shows but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive. It also does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. However, the description does list the features included (SNI detection, DNS poisoning, etc.), providing moderate transparency.

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?

Two tight sentences: first states the primary action, second lists key features. No fluff, efficient, and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and outputs conceptually. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., whether it returns a summary or per-node details), which would help the agent parse results. Slight gap but generally complete.

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 100% coverage with a description for the domain parameter including examples. The tool description reiterates the context but adds no new semantics beyond the schema's examples. 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 action ('Check Voidly probe results for a specific domain') and specifies what it provides (real-time blocking status from 37+ global locations, blocking method, entity attribution, SNI blocking detection, DNS poisoning detection, cert fingerprint analysis). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_blocked and get_domain_status.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., check_domain_blocked, get_domain_status), the agent would benefit from knowing when to choose this specific tool, but the description provides no such context or exclusions.

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