get_intel_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation at a high level and does not mention required account_id, whether domain is truly optional despite being the query target, or what type of intelligence the response contains.

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 short sentence with no filler and is appropriately front-loaded. It is brief to the point of under-specification, but the conciseness itself is handled well.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling list full of similar intel tools, the description is too incomplete. It fails to explain the account_id requirement, the semantics of 'domain,' or the expected result shape, and it gives no way to tell this endpoint apart from get_intel_domain_history.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description does not clarify the odd schema situation where account_id is required while domain, the actual query subject, is marked optional.

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 states a specific action, 'get,' applied to the resource 'domain,' which is clear enough to distinguish it from most of the huge sibling list. However, it does not differentiate it from closely related intel endpoints like get_intel_domain_history, and 'intelligence' is vague about what specific data is returned.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many similar intel-related siblings such as get_intel_whois, get_intel_domain_history, or get_intel_ip. The only usage signal is the implied context of querying a domain, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions.

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