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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the paid nature of the tool, the x_payment handshake, and the fact that the 'live' view re-reads the registry in real time. It does not mention potential error behavior or rate limits, but this is a notable disclosure effort.

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 dense but efficient, with each sentence contributing distinct value: data content, view specifics, payment flow, and alternative pricing tool. It is well-organized with clear semantic chunks and no filler.

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 complex paid tool with multiple views and no output schema, this description is comprehensive. It covers what data is returned for each view, the payment handshake, and the available free alternative. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error scenarios, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the values of 'view' ('dns' returns DNS summary, 'live' re-reads registry) and detailing the x_payment flow. This goes beyond the schema's terse property 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 explicitly states the tool returns an 'RDAP registration card' with detailed domain data and derived risk flags, and clearly distinguishes between registration, DNS, and live views. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on domain intelligence and even points to the 'pricing' tool for pricing needs.

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 clear guidance on when to use each view and explains the payment flow: call without x_payment to receive terms, sign, then call again. It also mentions the free 'pricing' tool as an alternative for price discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other sibling tools, but the distinct domain focus makes it implicit.

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