check_bulk_availability

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: 'one API call per domain' and 'per-domain errors surface in the results map without aborting the batch.' However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, or the exact structure of the results map.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential behavioral context efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions a 'results map' but does not specify its structure or what constitutes a successful response. For a tool making multiple API calls, this leaves gaps in understanding the output.

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 description does not explain the 'domains' parameter beyond being used for 'multiple domains.' With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gains no additional meaning about expected format or constraints, leaving ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check availability for multiple domains.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'check_availability' by specifying 'multiple' and using 'client-side fan-out — one API call per domain,' making it specific and distinct.

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 when checking multiple domains by stating 'Client-side fan-out' and handling per-domain errors, but it does not explicitly contrast with the alternative 'check_availability' for single domains or specify when not to use this tool.

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