rentadomain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned artifact includes a version and sha256 for integrity verification plus a never-sell guarantee, and it imposes an ordering constraint relative to the rent action.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads what is returned before the usage condition. It is slightly overloaded with a semicolon clause, but every element (return payload, integrity fields, timing) 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still names the key returned fields and the precondition for calling. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only says 'one name and term,' which adds no syntax or default behavior, and its use of 'name' for the 'host' parameter is a mild terminology drift.

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 ('Returns the exact lease text for one name and term') and enumerates what comes back (version, sha256, never-sell guarantee). The resource is distinct enough from get_name, get_rent_status, and start_rent that an agent can route correctly 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'call it before the human rents, so they read what they sign.' That is a clear when-to-use, but it names no alternative tool or exclusion (e.g., what to call after renting), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the lookup can resolve to 'listed, rented or not held' — useful negative-result context — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or caching. The remaining detail is return-value content, which the output schema already carries.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the verb and resource, then lists the returned data, then closes with the usage trigger. The semicolon-chained clause is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and result scope adequately. The only gap is the absence of guidance relative to the overlapping price/status 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the 'host' input, including that URLs and bare hosts both work. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or IDN guidance beyond that, so this is the baseline case.

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 — 'Looks up one domain name' — and enumerates exactly what is retrieved (listing status, 12/6/1-month prices, renewal floor and ceiling, appraisal, rent URL). The singular 'one' implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_names, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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?

'call it when the user names a specific domain' gives a clear, explicit trigger condition tied to user intent. It does not, however, address overlap with get_lease_terms or get_rent_status, which appear to surface some of the same price/status data, so the agent gets no exclusion rule for those siblings.

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the state machine (waiting vs signing vs active vs terminal failures) and what 'waiting' actually means about the human's side. It stops short of stating polling cadence or how long states persist before expiring.

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, with no filler. The parenthetical explanations of each status are dense but each carries distinguishing information, so the density is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and the state enumeration it does provide is a useful bonus. Minor gap: no guidance on polling frequency or how long to wait before a rent is considered expired.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The intent_id start_rent returned.' The description reinforces the provenance of the id but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reports where a rent started by start_rent stands') and explicitly enumerates the six possible outcomes, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_name or get_lease_terms. The tie back to start_rent makes the scope unambiguous.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Poll it after handing over approval_url,' which tells the agent both when to call this tool and what the human handoff looks like. The status list implicitly documents when a terminal state (failed, expired, taken) means the agent should stop polling.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that the return is instructional content ('exact steps ... with every URL') rather than an action, but it adds nothing about limits, freshness, or error behavior. It does not contradict the openWorldHint=false annotation.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads what is returned, then the trigger condition. No filler, though the phrase 'for this agent and its human' is slightly theatrical for the amount of information it carries.

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 a rich output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to convey purpose and timing, which it does. A brief note on what happens for an unavailable or invalid name would make it fully self-contained, but nothing essential is missing.

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 both parameters (host, client) are already documented with meaning and constraints. The description only indirectly references the host via 'once the user has picked a name' and never mentions the client parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the exact steps ... to rent a name and point its DNS') and adds the notable detail that the steps are for both the agent and its human, with every URL included. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the phrase 'rent a name' plus the routing hint below makes it distinguishable from search_names and get_rent_status.

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?

'call it once the user has picked a name' gives a concrete precondition that separates it from the discovery tools (search_names) and from the execution tool (start_rent). No explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, but the trigger condition 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope facts ('right now', result contents including the term menu) but says nothing about pagination limits, result volume defaults, or freshness guarantees. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the usage condition. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers purpose, scope, and ordering adequately; only minor operational details (default result count, pagination behavior) are absent, and those live in the schema.

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 both 'limit' and 'query' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, making the baseline of 3 correct.

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 ('Lists the domain names rentadomain.sh has for rent'), plus scope ('right now') and return content ('monthly price and term menu'). The phrase 'whenever the user wants a domain and has not named one' implicitly separates it from the named-domain sibling get_name, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

'call it first' gives an explicit ordering instruction, and 'whenever the user wants a domain and has not named one' gives both a trigger condition and an implicit exclusion (named-domain lookups belong elsewhere). No alternative 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.

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description carries substantial extra load: the full human-in-the-loop handoff via approval_url, the authentication/identity/payment steps, 'no refunds after activation', the commercial-use restriction, and the mandate_unavailable outcome. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the action, the return value and the human steps before the caveats. Every sentence conveys something actionable, though the run-on construction around authentication and payment could be split for faster scanning.

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 mutation tool with a nested mandate object and an output schema, the description supplies the preconditions, the human approval flow, the error vocabulary (taken, not_listed, mandate_unavailable) and the refund/activation policy. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 host, client, term_months and the mandate object are already documented, including the term enum and per-month pricing relationship. The description repeats term options and mandate unavailability rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Starts renting one listed name for a term') and names the observable outcome (returns an approval_url for the human to open). That distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like search_names, get_rent_status and how_to_rent without needing their schemas.

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?

'Call it once the user has chosen the name and term' gives an explicit precondition, and the mandate sentence effectively excludes a mode ('not available yet'). It also tells the agent what happens on failure (taken / not_listed with listed alternatives), though it never routes the agent to how_to_rent or get_lease_terms by name.

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