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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the domain type and filterability, but does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or response format, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence that captures the core functionality, though it could be slightly more structured to separate filter options.

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 list tool without output schema, the description provides essential purpose and filter context but lacks details on output fields, sorting, or pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by maximum price, category, or TLD, covering three of four parameters, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide individual 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'time-sensitive renewal-clearance domains', with filter options. It distinguishes from siblings like search_domains by specifying a specialized domain type.

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 usage for listing renewal-clearance domains with filters, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like search_domains, or when not to use.

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 the full burden. It discloses that only saleable domains are returned, which is a key behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or how filters combine, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the action and filters, followed by a critical qualifier. Every clause adds information with no redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how multiple filters interact, the meaning of 'clearance_only', or the output structure. Missing details hinder effective tool selection and parameter configuration.

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 only 25% (tld and query described). The description adds value by enumerating filter criteria (keyword, category, TLD, collection, price) that map to multiple parameters, but does not cover all 8 parameters (e.g., limit, clearance_only) or explain their semantics fully.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' and identifies the resource 'live FlipDomain.ai portfolio'. It lists multiple filter dimensions and adds the crucial constraint 'Returns saleable domains only', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain or list_clearance_domains.

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 usage for general domain search, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings (get_domain, list_clearance_domains, make_offer). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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