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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the live-verification mechanism against the Verisign RDAP registry, so the agent knows results are checked in real time rather than from a static list. Missing rate-limit or latency context keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the availability constraint is front-loaded before the input instructions. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does state that only available .com names are returned and where they are verified. It stops short of describing the shape of a result (name, availability status, etc.), but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'keyword' is the seed and that 'description' is optional but improves output quality, which slightly enriches the schema text, but it says nothing new about 'count'.

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+resource (generate brandable .com domain names) plus a critical scoping constraint: only names that are currently AVAILABLE to register. It implies differentiation from check_domain (verification) and find_available_domains_by_pattern (pattern-based), but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives input guidance ('give a keyword and, ideally, a short description') which implies the use context, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs check_domain or find_available_domains_by_pattern. The alternative tools and the conditions that select them are left 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 (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: candidates are verified live against the registry, only AVAILABLE domains are returned, results are grouped by TLD, and checks default to .com/.net. That is useful disclosure, though it doesn't mention rate limits or latency/cost of the exhaustive search.

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, then the input contract and defaults. Mostly efficient, though the aside 'the thing most domain tools/MCPs can't do' is promotional rather than instructive.

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 carries return-value burden and does explain that output is only available domains grouped by TLD. All four parameters are documented in the schema. It is close to complete, missing only guidance on cost/time for exhaustive enumeration and how this tool relates to its siblings.

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 earns extra credit by explaining the 'position' enum semantics with concrete examples (starts => Bearoak, ends => Oakbear, contains => Oakbearen) and restating the default. It adds interpretation beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 live registry verification. It implicitly distinguishes itself from generic 'domain tools/MCPs' but never names the actual siblings (check_domain, find_available_domains), so the agent must infer the split.

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 explains the input model clearly ('give a keyword and a position') and gives the default behavior (.com/.net, position 'all'), which implies usage. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus check_domain or find_available_domains, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, 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.