pekt – norske domener

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description still adds real value: what the return contains (first-year and renewal price in NOK incl. 25% VAT), the failure behavior (reason given if the extension is not sold), and an output-handling rule (always show buy_url). It stops short of describing latency or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and price scope, followed by a single actionable instruction about buy_url. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long-running first sentence is the only cost.

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 compensates by describing the shape of the result — availability, yearly prices with VAT basis, failure reason, and buy_url. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and present results 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% and the schema itself documents the bare-name default (example -> example.no) and Unicode handling. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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 and resource — check availability and price for one domain — and names the provider (pekt) plus units (NOK/year incl. VAT). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_extensions and suggest_domains, which cover different lookup scopes.

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?

"Check whether one domain name is available" scopes usage to a single-domain lookup and implicitly contrasts with the sibling list/suggest tools. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new context: pricing is quoted in NOK per year including 25% VAT, which an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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 with zero filler; the pricing/currency qualifier and the default-vs-category rule are both front-loaded and earn their space.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned, in what currency/units, and how the default differs from an explicit category. Minor gaps (e.g., ordering or list size limits) are not critical here.

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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, including the 'popular (default)' note, so the description's category sentence largely repeats structured data. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the domain extensions pekt sells') and additionally specifies the payload (first-year and renewal price). None of the siblings (check_domain, requirements, suggest_domains) perform a catalogue listing, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Explicitly states the default behavior ('Default is the most popular ones') and the condition for deviating ('pass a category for others'). No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the branching rule is clear enough to act on.

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 the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that prices are in NOK and include 25% VAT, that the payload includes registry notices, and that ownership eligibility varies by extension (.eu requires an EU/EEA holder, .se/.nu require an ID number). That is genuinely useful behavioral/domain context beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('what buying one extension at pekt involves') and then enumerates the returned fields. The nested parentheses are readable and every clause carries information, though the sentence is dense enough that a second short sentence about when to prefer it over siblings could have been added without bloat.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately previews the return contents (sale status, per-action pricing, ownership rules, notices) and the pricing basis. Annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is usage routing against the sibling tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'the extension without a dot, e.g. no, com or eu'. The description does not add format or validation detail for the parameter beyond what the schema states, so 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?

The description names the specific resource (one TLD/extension) and enumerates the data returned: availability for sale, price per action, ownership restrictions, and registry notices. That is far more than a restatement of the name 'requirements'. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_extensions or check_domain, so an agent must infer the 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings. An agent can infer 'per-TLD detail lookup' from the content, but the description never says to call list_extensions for the catalog or check_domain for availability, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g. that the TLD must be known first).

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 non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: results include availability plus prices denominated in NOK per year including 25% VAT and a buy_url, which tells the agent the pricing unit, tax treatment and currency of the output.

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: the action and scope come first, then the return payload. The parenthetical example and TLD list are compact and earn their place; nothing is padding.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (availability, price with currency/VAT, buy_url). With only two simple parameters and annotations covering safety, almost everything an agent needs is present; only explicit sibling routing is absent.

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 'name' and 'limit' (default 10, max 25) are already fully documented by the schema. The description repeats the mycompany example but adds no syntax, format, or default semantics beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (one name across popular extensions) and enumerates example TLDs, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not name or contrast with the sibling check_domain (which presumably checks a single full domain), leaving the boundary between the two to inference.

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 phrase 'check one name ... across the most popular extensions' implies the natural use case (broad availability sweep for a brand/company name), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to check_domain/list_extensions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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