search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns search results with availability status, prices in USD cents, and a search ID needed for purchases. It also specifies query constraints (no subdomains, no spaces), which are crucial for correct usage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second details the return values, and the rest provides specific usage rules with clear examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics thoroughly. However, it does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving minor gaps in full contextual coverage.

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 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by adding rich semantic details about the 'q' parameter. It explains what constitutes valid queries (e.g., full domain names with or without TLD) and provides explicit examples of valid and invalid inputs, going far beyond the bare schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('available domains'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'domains' (likely a list tool) or 'get_purchase_offers' (related but different). It specifies what is being searched for and what is returned.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to search for domain availability) and includes explicit rules for valid/invalid queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'domains' or 'get_purchase_offers', missing full sibling differentiation.

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