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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating results are availability names across TLDs and explicitly warning that purchase is user-confirmed in Kleap, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return behavior, a critical limitation, and routing to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the modest tool complexity, a complete input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential context an agent needs: what to search, what comes back, the user-confirmation boundary, and which sibling to use for owned domains.

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 schema already documents query, tlds, and context. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the example 'mybakery', so it neither compensates for missing schema info nor significantly improves understanding.

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 tool searches for available domains for a base site name and returns available names across TLDs. It also distinguishes itself from connect_domain by noting that tool is for domains the user already owns, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this tool to find available domain names, and use connect_domain when the user already owns a domain. It also notes that agents cannot buy domains, preventing an inappropriate downstream action.

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