DomainKits

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 5 results and references an external site, but fails to describe critical behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'newly registered' entails (e.g., time frame beyond the 'days' parameter). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational 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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently adds critical behavioral detail (5-result limit and external resource). Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, error conditions, or usage context, though the schema covers parameters well. The mention of external full results adds some context but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency, resulting in an adequate but gapped description.

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 schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying keyword-based search, which is already covered by the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 newly registered domains by keyword and returns 5 results, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('newly registered domains'). It distinguishes the scope from a full search by mentioning the limited results and pointing to an external source for comprehensive data. However, without sibling tools, differentiation isn't applicable, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or limitations beyond the result count. It mentions an external site for full results but doesn't clarify if this tool is for quick previews or specific use cases. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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