regru_check_domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content (availability status plus pricing per domain) which is useful, but says nothing about batch size limits, rate limits, or lookup failures for malformed domains. Low-risk read semantics are implied only by the verb, not stated.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no preamble. The second sentence largely restates the output already named in the first, making it mild redundancy rather than added information.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is adequate: it says what is returned (availability and price) for each domain and the schema covers both inputs. Missing only operational detail such as batch limits or handling of invalid domain strings.

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 domains array and currency enum (RUR/USD/EUR) are already fully documented. The description's 'one or more domains' confirms batching but adds no format or currency behavior 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?

Names a specific verb (check) and resource (domains) and states the two outputs (availability status, pricing), which separates it from the DNS-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast regru_suggest_domains, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. run before regru_renew_service or a purchase flow), and no mention of the alternative regru_suggest_domains for finding names. Usage is only implied by the verb 'check'.

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