Full due-diligence report for one domain: registration age/expiry/status (live RDAP), backlinks & authority from our own Common Crawl link graph, toxic-linker audit, website history (Wayback), trademark search links, and optional blacklist when configured. Use before buying a domain. No composite appraisal score — flags + per-section detail only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check, e.g. 'example.com'. |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
check_domain is clearly distinct from the other two, but find_available_domains and find_available_domains_by_pattern both return available domains and could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully. The descriptions do separate them by generation vs pattern enumeration, so the ambiguity is limited.
All tool names use a consistent imperative verb + noun pattern in snake_case: check_domain, find_available_domains, find_available_domains_by_pattern. The longer name is still predictable and follows the same convention.
Three tools is a well-scoped set for a domain search and due-diligence service: one for evaluating an existing domain, one for generating available brandable domains, and one for pattern-based enumeration. Each tool has a distinct job and earns its place.
The set covers the core domain workflow of discovering available domains and performing due diligence on a candidate. Minor gaps exist: there is no dedicated exact-domain availability check, and pattern enumeration defaults to only .com and .net.