domainium-search

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: credit pack requirement, zero cost for pack holders, and domain limit. It does not detail error handling or what happens without a pack, but covers main constraints.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences. The action and key constraints are front-loaded. No redundant 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 check tool with one parameter, the description covers preconditions and constraints but lacks information about the return value (e.g., boolean or list of results). Since no output schema exists, the description should hint at what the agent receives.

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 3. The description adds value by specifying 'Max 20 domains', a constraint not in the schema. No further parameter details are needed as the schema adequately describes the 'domains' 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?

The description uses the verb 'check' and resource 'domain availability', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_credits_balance' and 'search_names' by focusing on availability checking, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'search_names' which might overlap.

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?

Provides clear context: requires a Starter or Pro credit pack, no credit cost for pack holders, and a maximum of 20 domains. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets the 'current credit balance' and is 'Free', which hints at read-only and cost-free behavior, but does not elaborate on side effects, rate limits, or output details.

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 very short (two phrases) and gets to the point. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be structured into a full sentence, and the 'Free.' part feels slightly detached.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple retrieval. It tells the agent what the tool does ('get current credit balance') and that it is 'Free'. No missing critical information for basic use.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 verb-resource pair 'Get current credit balance', which accurately describes the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_domain_availability' and 'search_names' by focusing on a unique resource (credit balance).

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 includes 'Free.' which implies simple, unrestricted usage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It notes the credit cost but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. No rate limits, privacy impacts, or authentication needs are mentioned, leaving significant 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 a single sentence, which makes it concise, but it is too short to be fully informative. It includes the purpose and cost, which are essential, but omits critical details like parameter usage and return values. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks completeness.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, required permissions, error conditions, or how the credit cost applies. An agent would have insufficient context to use this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, meaning 3 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema details. The description does not explain how parameters like 'style' or 'language' affect results beyond what the schema provides.

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 searches for domain and business name suggestions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_availability (which checks availability) and get_credits_balance (which queries credits). The verb 'search' and resource 'name suggestions' are specific and appropriate.

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 only mentions a cost of 1 credit, hinting at a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No explicit context for usage scenarios or comparison with sibling tools is given.

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