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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with explaining safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the free-sample quota and the x402 USDC micropayment model, which are not present in structured fields.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core resource is front-loaded, followed by the cost model, making it easy to scan.

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 one-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly, including payment behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not clarify how this differs from the domains__abuse-contacts sibling, which is relevant for selection.

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% for the single required domain parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Platform domain or URL'. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or usage guidance for that parameter, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the resource returned: a published DMCA / abuse contact (email or form) for major platforms, hosts, CDNs, or registrars. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling domains__abuse-contacts, leaving an agent to infer the boundary between the two.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond a domain. Its pricing and rate-limit note is helpful context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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