domain-search-king-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses specific data sources (RDAP, Common Crawl, Wayback), the optional blacklist caveat, and the output limitation (no composite score, flags + per-section detail). It implies a read-only report, though not explicitly stating so, which is acceptable for this tool type.

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 dense but well-structured set of three sentences: the main content, a usage directive, and a key output caveat. No fluff or redundancy; each 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 complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the content (registration, backlinks, toxic linkers, history, trademarks, blacklist) and the output format (flags + detail, no composite score). It doesn't provide exact return structure, but the high-level guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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%, and the parameter description 'Domain to check, e.g. 'example.com'' is already clear. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, 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 clearly states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('domain') and enumerates the exact data sources and report contents. It distinguishes itself from siblings (find_available_domains) which focus on availability, not due diligence.

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 says 'Use before buying a domain', providing a clear when-to-use. It doesn't mention when not to use, but the sibling names make the distinction obvious. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are verified live against the Verisign RDAP registry, only available domains are returned, and the names are brandable .com options. This is meaningful beyond the tool name.

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 core behavior, and no filler. Every clause contributes either what the tool returns, how it verifies availability, or what input the user should provide.

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 three-parameter tool with fully described schema, the description is effectively complete: it explains the output (available brandable .com names) and the verification behavior. It does not explicitly mention count defaults or sibling routing, but those are either in the schema or covered by other dimensions.

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 adds minor context by connecting the keyword and business description to better name generation, but does not add significant meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb (generate), resource (.com domain names), and key constraint (only currently available, verified live against Verisign RDAP). It clearly distinguishes this idea-based brandable domain tool from the sibling check_domain and find_available_domains_by_pattern tools.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this when you need brandable .com names for a business idea, and provide a keyword plus optionally a business description. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses live registry verification, that only available domains are returned, grouping by TLD, and default TLDs. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read-only enumeration tool, this is strong behavioral disclosure, earning a 4.

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?

Four sentences efficiently convey the purpose, differentiator, position examples, behavioral verification note, and default TLDs. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and contains no filler—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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter behavior, defaults, and output grouping ('grouped by TLD'). It doesn't specify the exact return structure, but given the straightforward nature, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly—slightly more detail on return format would push it to a 5.

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 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples for the 'position' enum (e.g., 'starts' → 'Bearoak') and clarifies comma-separated keyword lists, which meaningfully supplements the bare schema definitions and justifies a 4.

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 action ('exhaustively enumerate') on a specific resource ('available domain matching a keyword PATTERN') and immediately differentiates it from other domain tools by highlighting its exhaustive, cross-TLD nature. It also explains the pattern positions, making the tool's function unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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 clearly implies its unique niche—exhaustive pattern-based enumeration across TLDs, contrasting with 'most domain tools'—and gives usage context with positions and defaults. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (check_domain, find_available_domains) or specify when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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