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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return content, including owner, expiry, and order hash when for sale, and that unlisted names are searchable. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or any auth/rate-limit considerations, 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the use case and a scope limitation. It is compact but effective, with only minor redundancy in the repeated 'listed or not' phrasing.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a strong job of covering the main context: what is searched, what is returned, how it relates to prepare_offer, and market scope. It does not describe pagination strategy or sort order, but the schema covers paging fields and the description is otherwise sufficient for calling the 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 coverage is high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats some schema concepts like 'substring, length, character class and trait' but does not clarify cross-parameter semantics or add meaning beyond the schema's parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Basenames REGISTRY'. It clearly distinguishes itself from listing-oriented siblings by noting it covers every registered name, 'listed or not', and specifies the search dimensions and returned row fields.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is the 'discovery surface for prepare_offer' and 'without it an agent has no way to learn a name exists'. It also constrains scope with 'Name markets only', though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.