EnCirca Domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying 'without writing cache rows' (confirming idempotence) and 'partner-specific ESB rules' (accounting for partner-dependent behavior). No contradiction exists.

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?

A single sentence of 20 words packs the core purpose, scope ('one or more'), live nature, partner-specific rules, and side-effect note. Every word earns its place with zero 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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers the primary purpose and key behavioral traits (live, no cache write). Given the moderate parameter count (7) and openWorldHint, it could briefly clarify how order_type or domain_years relate to pricing, but the schema already handles parameter descriptions. The combination is largely sufficient.

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 57% – several parameters already have descriptions (domains format, years range, order_type enum, partner_id optionality, domain_years per-domain, requirement_use_case purpose). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter beyond 'one or more domains'. It adds minimal semantic value over 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('live local pricing and availability for one or more domains'), with technical context ('partner-specific ESB rules', 'without writing cache rows'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_available_domains (suggestion) and get_domain_details (details on registered 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 real-time, side-effect-free use ('without writing cache rows', 'live'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as suggest_available_domains or get_domain_requirements. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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?

The description states 'Create a checkout URL' implying a non-read mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, violating transparency. No other behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the contradictory creation claim.

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 with clear structure: purpose then a specific usage instruction. While concise, the first sentence is somewhat cryptic (what is the JWT token reference?). No extraneous words, but could be improved.

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 10 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers a single usage scenario (special TLDs). It does not explain the JWT context, how parameters interact, or the checkout flow. The output schema may cover return values, but operational context is lacking.

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 60%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It introduces the concept of a 'raw JWT token' which is not a parameter in the schema, potentially confusing the agent. No parameter values or relationships are explained.

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 creates a checkout URL for available domains using a raw JWT token. The verb-resource pairing is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on domain info and pricing.

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 explicit guidance for special TLDs: 'do not collect field values in chat; tell the customer what checkout will require.' This is a useful behavioral instruction, though it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool vs alternatives (which are absent among siblings).

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by specifying the authentication requirement and the exact identity data returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action ('Return...') and then state a critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or 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?

Given the absence of parameters, comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and authentication context. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what it does and when to call it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it correctly implies that no input is required. The schema coverage is 100% by default.

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 explicitly states 'Return the currently authenticated Auth0 user and selected Encirca team identity', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_account_profile or list_my_domains, which serve distinct purposes.

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 mentions the required Authorization header, which is a prerequisite, but does not provide explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context among sibling tools implies its purpose, but no direct comparisons or exclusions are given.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true, true, false – so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds that it uses the 'verified Auth0 token', implying authentication dependency, which is useful context beyond annotations. It doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as caching, rate limits, or what happens if the token is invalid.

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 contains all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes key behavioral context (authenticated, Auth0 token). Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and a rich output schema (though not detailed here), the description reasonably covers the purpose. It lacks guidance on error conditions (e.g., invalid token, missing team profile) and does not mention if the team profile part is optional. The sibling set includes 'get_account_identity', which could overlap in functionality, and no clarification is provided.

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 100% with zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to document. The description adds meaning by stating the source of data (Auth0 token) and the scope of the return (profile and team profile), which helps the agent understand what it will receive without needing parameters.

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 returns an Encirca account profile and selected team profile from an authenticated Auth0 token. The verb 'Return' and resource 'authenticated Encirca account profile and selected team profile' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'get_account_identity', which also likely returns account-related profile info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_account_identity' or other tools. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication state or context, nor does it state when not to use it.

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?

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the returned details are 'sanitized' and that 'auth codes and contact records are never returned.' This expands on the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. No contradictions with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds a key constraint in the second sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, good annotations, and low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core behavior and exclusions. It could mention prerequisites like domain ownership verification, but that is implied by 'owned by the account.'

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 50% (only partner_id has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the 'domain' parameter, which lacks a description in the schema. The description could have clarified the expected format or the nature of the domain string, but it did not.

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 returns sanitized read-only details for a domain owned by the authenticated account, and explicitly notes what is never returned (auth codes, contact records). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_domains (listing) and suggest_available_domains (suggestions).

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 when needing detailed information about a specific owned domain, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_domain_requirements or list_my_domains. The condition 'owned by the authenticated account' provides a clear prerequisite, but no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it only applies to 'MCP-only restricted TLDs' and returns 'checkout flow choices', which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with 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 a single sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise with no wasted words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) and the ambiguous 'MCP-only' slightly detract from efficiency.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the return type (eligibility requirements and checkout flow choices) but does not explain the scope (only restricted TLDs) or the optional nature of all parameters. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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 60%, which is not low (<50%), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for the two parameters missing descriptions (default_tld and possibly others).

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'MCP-only restricted TLD eligibility requirements and checkout flow choices', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_details. However, the term 'MCP-only' is ambiguous and may confuse the agent, slightly reducing clarity.

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 the tool is used to inform customers about checkout requirements, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., check_domain_price for pricing, get_domain_details for general info). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the tool operates on the authenticated Encirca account and uses a range for expiration, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination (limit/maximum) or the include_expired behavior, which would be useful for transparency.

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 sentence, front-loading the purpose and key variant (configurable days). Every word contributes: 'authenticated Encirca account' scopes the data source, 'within a configurable number of days' explains the key filter. 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the tool has 4 optional parameters, low schema coverage, and moderate complexity (pagination limit, include_expired flag, partner_id). The description does not cover how to handle partner_id or the effect of include_expired. An additional sentence clarifying these would improve completeness.

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 (25%, only partner_id has a description). The description adds meaning for within_days (configurable expiration threshold) and implies limit/account context, but does not explain include_expired or partner_id details. With 0 required params, baseline would be 4, but the low coverage demands compensation; the description provides some but not complete clarity for all 4 parameters.

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 lists domains from the authenticated Encirca account, specifies the key filtering criterion (expire within configurable number of days), and distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_domains (which likely lists all domains) and check_domain_price or suggest_available_domains (which are about availability/pricing, not owned expiring 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 gives minimal context for when to use: it is for finding domains nearing expiration. However, it does not explain when not to use it (e.g., when needing all domains, use list_my_domains) or mention any alternatives. The optional include_expired parameter is not mentioned, nor prerequisites like the partner id fallback.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it lists ESB domain invoices/orders, which goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or that the results are scoped to the authenticated account, though the annotation openWorldHint=false implies scope.

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 packs purpose, scope, and authentication context. No superfluous words.

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 tool's low complexity (3 optional params, no enums, simple output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described. However, the description could mention that limit and status are optional filters to aid usage, but the schema handles that partially.

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% (only partner_id has a description). The description does not detail the parameters further, but the schema itself defines limit, status, and partner_id with defaults and constraints. The description's mention of 'invoices/orders' and 'authenticated Encirca account' adds context about what status might filter (e.g., invoice statuses) and that partner_id relates to an ESB partner, which partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 lists read-only ESB domain invoices/orders for the authenticated Encirca account. It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('invoices/orders'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_my_domains or list_expiring_domains by targeting financial records.

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 the tool is for viewing invoices and orders, and the 'read-only' qualifier suggests it's safe to call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_my_domains. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond authentication.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about data sources ('live RegyREST domain data plus read-only ESB task fallback') and hints at a fallback mechanism, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions. The description contributes meaningful behavioral insight.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose and data sources. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. Ideal conciseness.

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 read-only list tool with an existing output schema and high annotation coverage, the description sufficiently adds context about the data sources. It does not mention pagination or limits, which may be relevant for large accounts. However, given the output schema handles return structure, the description is largely complete. Minor gap in missing pagination detail.

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 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any further meaning or context about the parameters (e.g., how partner_id affects the query or what pending includes). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers the details.

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 lists domains for the authenticated Encirca account, specifying the data sources (live RegyREST data plus ESB fallback). This is distinct from sibling tools like list_expiring_domains or get_domain_details, making it easy for an agent to differentiate.

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 like list_expiring_domains or suggest_available_domains. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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?

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'AI-backed' and 'pre-check availability locally', which provide useful context about generative behavior and local availability checking. There is no contradiction with 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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain key parameters like limit and include_unavailable. While the output schema covers return values, the lack of parameter guidance leaves the agent with incomplete understanding.

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 17% (partner_id). The description hints at 'brief' (business brief) and 'partner-appropriate TLDs' (tlds, partner_id), but does not explain limit, include_unavailable, or default_tld. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.

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 generates domain ideas using AI from a business brief and checks availability across TLDs. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_price or get_domain_details, which operate on existing 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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, without mentioning siblings or conditions for use. The agent must infer the use case from the purpose alone.

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