CanYouGrab.it

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so no credit for that. Description adds value by disclosing return fields (confidence, source, cache age) and ambiguous result handling, which is behavior not visible elsewhere.

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 sentences, front-loaded with usage trigger, then return details. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers purpose, return values, and edge-case behavior (ambiguous results). It lacks deeper details on interpreting confidence/cache age and domain format, but annotations plus schema make the tool usable.

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 only parameter is 'domains' (array of strings), and description says 'one or more domains,' reinforcing plurality. However, schema coverage is 0% and description does not specify expected domain format (e.g., no protocol, TLD required), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 and resource: 'whether one or more domains are available to register.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on registration availability rather than usage or general info.

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?

Starts with 'Use this when...' giving explicit trigger context. It doesn't provide exclusions or compare with sibling tools, but the context is clear enough to avoid overlap with check_usage or get_domain_info.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool reports on the current billing period and includes plan/usage/quota, which is useful. It doesn't describe the return format or other behavioral details, but given the strong annotations, the description provides sufficient additional context without contradicting them.

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 that front-loads the usage condition and clearly communicates what the tool does. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous 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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the exact kind of data the user will see (plan, usage, remaining quota) and the time scope (current billing period), which fully aligns with the annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description correctly does not attempt to explain any parameters, earning the baseline score of 4 for 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 uses a specific verb ('see') and clearly identifies the resource: the user's CanYouGrab.it plan, usage, and remaining quota for the current billing period. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools check_domains and get_domain_info, which focus on domains rather than account usage.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the user wants to see their plan, usage, and remaining quota'), providing a clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what kind of data the call returns (WHOIS/registration details, owner, expiry, nameservers). It does not discuss potential edge cases like data redaction or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 that front-loads the usage trigger, gives concrete examples, and contains no filler or redundant content. It is compact and immediately useful.

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-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the core purpose and likely return content well. However, it omits any mention of output shape and does not address how this tool relates to its siblings, which leaves slight room for ambiguity in more complex workflows.

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 input schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), and the description only says 'a specific domain' without clarifying the expected format—e.g., whether it should be 'example.com', include protocol, or support IDN/punycode. The agent is left to infer valid input from the parameter name alone.

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 opens with 'Use this when the user wants WHOIS or registration information about a specific domain' and enumerates concrete examples like ownership, registration date, expiry, and nameservers. This makes the action and resource clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domains, which sounds plural/batch-oriented.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user wants WHOIS...'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention excluded cases or point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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