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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses the external service and the no-auth requirement, but it does not describe rate limits, query-matching behavior, or how results are presented.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, source, and access requirement without repeating schema information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is near-minimal but workable. Missing parameter detail and operational context such as rate limits keep it from being fully complete.

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 schema only defines q as an undocumented string with a default, so the description must supply meaning. The phrase 'Find domain' helps an agent infer that q is the domain query, but it never explicitly maps q to the parameter or states the expected format.

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 identifies the action ('Find domain in public pastes'), the data source (psbdmp.ws), and the access requirement (no key). It is distinct enough from sibling paste_email because it is explicitly domain-focused, though it does not name the alternative.

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 intended use case is implied: use this to find a domain in public paste data. The '(no key)' note adds an access prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over paste_email or other paste-related siblings.

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