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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'check' clearly indicates a read-only query rather than a registration or mutation action, and it discloses the two key outputs: availability and yearly price. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the wording already conveys a non-destructive lookup.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose, states the resource type, and includes the secondary output without unnecessary detail.

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?

No annotations or output schema are present, so the description needs to explain both behavior and expected result. It mentions both outputs, availability and yearly price, which is enough for a simple check tool. The main missing piece is an explicit note about response format and a clearer comparison to sibling tools, but these are minor for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does this by identifying 'name' as a .hood name, which adds meaning beyond the raw string type in the schema. It stops short of giving format constraints (e.g., case, punycode, length), but it is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 whether ... available to register') and the resource (a .hood name), and also names the second output (yearly price). This differentiates it from the sibling resolve/info tools, which focus on name details rather than availability for registration.

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 phrase 'available to register' implies the tool is meant to be used before registering a .hood name. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so an agent gets lightweight context but no direct routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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