FlipDomain Domain Sales

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

No annotations provided to indicate safety or side effects. The description only says 'Get' suggesting read-only, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., domain not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The agent has to assume.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and key info. Could be expanded slightly to include parameter details without losing conciseness, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter with no schema description, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'buyer paths' are, the expected format of the asking price, or error handling. An agent would need additional information to reliably use this tool.

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 compensate. It says 'exact domain' but does not specify format (e.g., must be like 'example.com' not 'example' or 'www.example.com'). Without this, an agent might pass an incomplete domain string. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'domain', and specifies the information retrieved (asking price and buyer paths) in a specific context (live sale catalog, exact domain). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_domains (likely broader) and make_offer (different action).

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 versus alternatives like search_domains or make_offer. The description implies it's for checking price/paths for an exact domain, but lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions 'genuine' and 'saleable' but does not explain validation, authorization needs, side effects, or rate limits. Minimal disclosure beyond the action itself.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the key verb, no unnecessary words. Efficient and direct.

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 output schema, so the agent lacks information about return values (e.g., success indicator, offer ID). The description doesn't mention prerequisites like domain availability or user authentication. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 low (25%, only 'contact' has a description). The description adds no meaning for 'domain', 'price_usd', or 'message' beyond the schema fields. It implies price is currency amount but no format or constraints beyond schema.

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 ('Submit'), resource ('domain'), currency ('USD'), and qualifiers ('genuine', 'saleable'). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_domain' and 'search_domains' which are read-only query tools.

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 to use (when making an offer) and notes the offer pipeline, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The siblings provide context but no direct exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds context by stating 'Returns saleable domains only' and 'live portfolio,' but fails to disclose pagination, sorting, error behavior, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is partial.

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, clear sentence of 14 words. Every word contributes meaning. It could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness, but as is, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It omits return format, filtering behavior, ordering, and error handling. The agent lacks essential information to reliably invoke this tool.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters described). The description maps high-level criteria (keyword, category, TLD, price) to the parameters, adding some grouping context. However, it does not specify format details (e.g., TLD dot convention) or range semantics, so the added value is modest.

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 it searches a live domain portfolio by keyword, category, TLD, and price, and returns saleable domains only. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain (retrieve single domain) and make_offer (action).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (get_domain, make_offer). It lacks any mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer entirely from context.

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