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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool only covers GoDaddy auctions, the types of data returned (appraisal, price, bid count, close time), and the caveat about 'not listed' not indicating registration status. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the core behavioral scope is well covered.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: function and return values, usage guidance, and scope clarification. No redundant or extraneous words; information is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it returns and its limitations. It could be more complete by mentioning that the domain must be valid or noting response format, but it sufficiently covers the essential information for an agent to use it 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% with the 'domain' parameter described as 'Full domain, e.g. example.com'. The description adds that the tool checks if the domain is listed, which reinforces the purpose but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool checks a specific domain for listing in GoDaddy auctions and returns appraisal, price, bid count, and close time. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_auctions' (lists auctions) and 'bid_rates' (rates), as it focuses on a single domain lookup.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before suggesting a domain name, ensuring the suggestion is purchasable. It also clarifies the scope (GoDaddy auctions only) and the limitation that a 'not listed' result does not imply availability elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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