Domain Availability

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('across 6 TLDs') and including 'purchase and renewal pricing,' which are not covered by annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as checking availability aligns with read-only operations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key details (6 TLDs, pricing). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output format (e.g., structured pricing data) and does not fully compensate for the missing output schema, though annotations provide good behavioral context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with a clear parameter description for 'brand_name.' The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Check domain availability') and resource ('across 6 TLDs'), with explicit enumeration of the TLDs (.com, .io, .co, .app, .dev, .ai). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'brandomica_check_all' or 'brandomica_check_social' by focusing solely on domain availability with pricing, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'brandomica_check_all' (which might check more TLDs) or 'brandomica_batch_check' (for multiple names), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied at best.

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