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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Inspect' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not modify state, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. It does list the content returned, which is helpful, but it omits behavioral details like error handling for non-existent domains.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the specific data fields the agent can expect. Every word 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 simple 1-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the return data (active listing, price history, highest offer, bids). It is not overly complex, so this level of detail is sufficient. A minor gap is not stating what happens for invalid domains, but the core information the agent needs to call the tool correctly is present.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter domainName, including a type and example. The description's phrase 'any .i domain' reinforces that the parameter is the domain name but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource ('marketplace status for any .i domain') and enumerates the exact data returned (active listing, price history, highest offer, bids). This distinguishes it from siblings like marketplace_browse_listings (which lists many domains) and marketplace_buy_domain (which executes a purchase).

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 implies usage: call this when you need full marketplace details for a specific .i domain. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for browsing many listings, use marketplace_browse_listings) or name any alternative. The scope 'any .i domain' gives some context but no direct routing.

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