FlipDomain Domain Sales

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies the data retrieved. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the domain is not found. Basic disclosure is adequate for a simple query.

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, 15 words, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words, concise and to the point.

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?

Tool has 1 parameter and no output schema. Description covers the essential purpose (retrieving price and buyer paths) but doesn't mention what buyer paths are or potential output details. For a simple read tool, it is mostly complete, though edge cases are not addressed.

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 description must add meaning. It describes the parameter as 'exact domain', which implies it should be a precise string, but does not specify format (e.g., with or without www, TLD). This adds some context but insufficiently compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get', resource 'domain', and the specific information retrieved ('asking price and buyer paths'). It specifies 'exact domain in the live sale catalog', distinguishing it from sibling 'search_domains' which is for broader search.

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 explicitly states it is for an 'exact domain' in the 'live sale catalog', implying it should be used when you have a precise domain name. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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 fully carries the burden. It states that 'The seller receives it through the live offer pipeline', which hints at the outcome, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, permissions required, or whether the domain is checked for saleability before submission.

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 consists of two concise sentences (14 words) that are front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not specify return values, success/failure conditions, or domain pre-validation. An agent lacks sufficient context to safely 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 25% (only 'contact' has a description). The tool description adds minimal parameter context: it mentions 'genuine USD offer' but does not explain the meaning of 'domain', 'message', or 'price_usd' beyond what the schema trivially provides (type/constraints).

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'), the resource ('a genuine USD offer'), and the target ('for a saleable domain'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_domain' and 'search_domains' which focus on retrieval and listing.

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 that this tool is used to submit an offer for a saleable domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions like domain availability or user authorization.

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 carries full burden. It reveals one behavioral trait: 'Returns saleable domains only', implying a filter. However, it lacks disclosure about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no results are found. The term 'live' is vague.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and filters. No unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that all parameters are optional, the default and max limit, or the structure of returned data. A more complete description would cover these aspects.

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 coverage is low (33%). The description mentions query, category, TLD, and price but does not explain each parameter's semantics beyond their names. For example, 'max_price_usd' and 'min_price_usd' are not described. The 'limit' parameter is absent. The description partially compensates but insufficiently.

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 'Search' and the resource 'FlipDomain.ai portfolio', listing filters: keyword, category, TLD, price. It also mentions returning 'saleable domains only', which clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domain' or 'make_offer'.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide context about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. For example, it does not specify that 'get_domain' is for individual domain details.

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