domain-search-king-mcp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses the external data sources used, notes that blacklist inclusion is optional/configuration-dependent, and explicitly says there is no composite appraisal score, only flags and per-section detail. It does not contradict 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs the supporting sections into a single efficient sentence. The final short sentence clarifies output behavior without repeating structured data. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, open-world due-diligence tool with no output schema, the description does well: it lists the report sections and explicitly warns that there is no composite score, only flags and per-section detail. It could go further on response structure, timing, or rate/cost considerations, but the essential expectations are covered.

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 coverage is 100% for the single domain parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and example. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond specifying that it operates on one domain, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource: a full due-diligence report for one domain. It enumerates the exact sections included (RDAP, backlinks/authority, toxic-linker audit, Wayback history, trademark search links, optional blacklist), making clear it is not a domain-availability search like its siblings.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use before buying a domain.' This directly tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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 establish readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new operational context beyond them: availability is checked against the Verisign RDAP registry through a caching proxy and results can be up to 10 minutes stale — a freshness caveat an agent needs before trusting an 'available' answer. It does not mention rate limits or what happens on registry failure.

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 the action and the availability guarantee, followed by the input guidance. The registry/proxy parenthetical is long but earns its place as a freshness disclosure; nothing is redundant.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the return value (filtered list of registrable .com names) and supplies the freshness limitation. Missing only edge-case behavior, such as what is returned when nothing is available or how count caps interact with filtering.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that 'description' is optional yet yields better names, which conveys the quality tradeoff the schema text does not. The 'count' parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 (generate) and resource (brandable .com domain names) with a clear output constraint (only currently AVAILABLE ones). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings check_domain or find_available_domains_by_pattern, so an agent must infer that this is the keyword-driven generator rather than the pattern-based or single-domain checker.

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 closing sentence tells the agent what to supply (a keyword, ideally a business description) and why, which implies when to reach for this tool. But it never states when to prefer check_domain or find_available_domains_by_pattern, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real operational context: candidates are checked against the registry, answers may be up to 10 minutes stale, only AVAILABLE domains are returned, and results are grouped by TLD. That caching and filtering behavior is not derivable from the annotations and is genuinely useful.

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 capability and the position vocabulary before the defaults, with no wasted sentences. The aside about what other domain tools/MCPs can't do is mildly promotional but does not obscure the actionable content.

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 read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, how results are filtered (available only), how they are grouped, and the caching window. Only the sibling-routing gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving concrete worked examples for each position value (Bearoak, Oakbear, Oakbearen) and restating the multi-keyword comma syntax and .com/.net default in prose. The position examples materially clarify an enum whose labels alone could be ambiguous.

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: exhaustively enumerate available domains matching a keyword pattern across TLDs, with explicit position modes. It contrasts itself against 'most domain tools/MCPs' generally but never names the very close sibling find_available_domains, so an agent still has to guess which of the two to pick.

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 shows how to invoke it (give a keyword plus a position, with examples for starts/ends/contains/all) and notes that only available domains are returned. However, it never says when to use this instead of the near-identical sibling find_available_domains, nor when a simple check_domain is sufficient, so routing is left to inference.

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