TLDers Domain Prices

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the lookup mechanism (RDAP with WHOIS fallback) and the failure semantics — that 'available' is null when the registry is unreachable — which an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return-value caveat. Every clause earns its place with zero 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?

There is no output schema, so the description wisely covers the critical return field ('available' is null on registry failure). For a two-parameter read-only tool this is largely complete, though it omits what a successful result otherwise contains.

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 50%: the api_key parameter is documented in the schema, but 'domain' is bare. The description partially compensates by clarifying that a 'full domain name' (not just a TLD) is expected, but adds no format or validation detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live availability check for a full domain name') and names the underlying mechanism (RDAP, WHOIS fallback). It is clearly distinct from the pricing-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them in text.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The phrase 'full domain name' implies an input prerequisite, but there is no statement about when this tool should be chosen over siblings like get_tld_prices or compare_tlds.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered. The description adds only the 'up to 20 extensions' bound, which is a behavioral constraint but also duplicates the schema's maxItems=20. No pricing volatility, caching, or result-ordering behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is what leaves the usage and parameter gaps unaddressed.

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 read-only, one-required-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is routing ambiguity among the price-related siblings, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness failure for this low-complexity 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 50% (api_key is documented in-schema, tlds is not). The description partially compensates by clarifying that the array elements are extensions ('TLDs') and that at most 20 are accepted, but it adds no format guidance (leading dot or not, case, duplicates) for the undocumented required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: comparing registrar prices across extensions, with the cardinality bound (up to 20) included. This is clearly distinct in kind from a single-lookup tool like get_tld_prices, but the description never explicitly names or distinguishes itself from siblings such as find_cheapest_tlds or get_tld_prices.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative find_cheapest_tlds or get_tld_prices. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the multi-TLD side-by-side option rather than the cheapest-pick or single-price option.

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful format context ('Prices in USD/year') and clarifies what each row represents, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or result ordering behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the price dimensions covered, with the unit stated last. No filler, though the dense enumeration of four price types is slightly hard to parse at a glance.

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 no output schema, the description does describe the returned data (cheapest registrar per price dimension in USD/year), which is helpful. However, it omits guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and gives no pagination or default-ordering context for a 5-parameter 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 description coverage is 60%: q, type and api_key are documented in the schema, while sort and limit are not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mention of filtering, sorting, or limits), only the price unit, which is relevant to price sorting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (domain extensions/TLDs) and defines the scope precisely: cheapest registrar for first-year, renewal, transfer and 3-year totals. It is clearly distinct in intent from availability checking, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_tld_prices or compare_tlds.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_tld_prices or compare_tlds. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice among six 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per-registrar and cover both registration and renewal fees, but says nothing about time span, sampling granularity, or how much history is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no redundant restatement of the title or name. Nothing to trim.

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 history tool with no output schema, the description should convey the temporal scope (range, granularity, ordering) since the agent cannot learn it from structured fields. It conveys what dimensions exist (registrar, registration/renewal) but not the time dimension that 'history' implies.

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%: api_key is documented in the schema, but tld has no description. The phrase 'for one extension' partially compensates by signaling that tld accepts a single extension rather than a list, but no format guidance (with or without leading dot) is given.

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?

Specific verb-resource pairing: it returns per-registrar registration and renewal price history for one extension, which is more precise than the title alone. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tld_prices or compare_tlds, so an agent can't tell 'history' from 'current prices' without reading the schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to the closest alternative (get_tld_prices for current prices vs this for history). The agent must infer the distinction from the name.

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 openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that results are sorted cheapest-first and include average/median aggregates, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or coverage breadth of registrars.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then the ordering and aggregates. Every clause carries information; 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes what is returned (per-registrar prices plus averages/medians). Remaining gaps are minor: currency, number of registrars, and pagination behavior are unstated, but not essential to invoke 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 50% (api_key documented, tld not). The description compensates by giving concrete format examples for the required tld ('com', 'io', 'co.in'), which clarifies the expected input beyond the bare string type in 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('current register / renew / transfer price for one extension') plus scope and ordering ('cheapest first, plus average and median'). The 'one extension' framing cleanly distinguishes it from compare_tlds and find_cheapest_tlds.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one extension' versus the multi-TLD siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing from the scope phrase alone.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds that results are filtered to currently-active codes and sorted by discount descending, which affects how the agent interprets the output; it omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, which is a modest gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope constraint and sort order are stated immediately with zero wasted 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?

For a read-only list tool with rich annotations, nothing critical is missing about how to call it. However, there is no output schema, and the description never hints at what a returned promo code contains (discount amount, registrar, expiry), leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response shape.

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%: api_key is documented in the schema itself, and limit is fully specified structurally (default 25, min 1, max 100). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list promo/coupon codes) plus scope ('currently active registrar') and ordering ('biggest discount first'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which all deal with domains, TLD pricing, or registrars, though it never explicitly names a distinguishing boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is referenced. An agent must infer that this is a discovery aid rather than, say, a pricing lookup, which get_tld_prices and find_cheapest_tlds already cover.

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 safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the response contains (WHOIS-privacy info, number of tracked TLDs), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, auth scope, or result size.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource and its payload with no filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but it wastes no 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?

For a simple read-only enumeration tool with full annotation coverage and one fully documented parameter, the description covers what is returned and its scope. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly, though return volume or ordering is unaddressed.

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 single api_key parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the fallback auth conditions. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Names a specific resource (registrars) and the verb implied by the name (list), and adds scope detail: WHOIS-privacy info and count of tracked TLDs. It is distinguishable from the TLD/price-oriented siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_tld_prices or compare_tlds. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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