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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one key behavioral trait: 'real-time availability checks.' However, it does not specify whether results are filtered to only available domains, the output format, or any limitations. This is a meaningful but incomplete disclosure.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second gives practical usage examples. No filler or redundant information; the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

The tool has a simple schema and no output schema or annotations. The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly describe the return format (e.g., list of suggestions with availability status). While the behavior is implied, the missing output details prevent a higher score.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions and defaults (e.g., tlds default, max_results default). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('domain name suggestions') and source ('keywords or business description'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_domain_availability, which checks a specific domain, by focusing on generation of suggestions.

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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance with concrete user utterances ('help me find a domain for my bakery'). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context clearly indicates this tool is for brainstorming domains rather than checking or registering specific ones.

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