Search domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the search is strictly account-scoped ('never reports on domains held elsewhere') and returns summaries rather than full objects. This complements the annotations with scope and output-shape information they cannot convey, and nothing contradicts them.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first delivers function, filter scope, and return shape; the second adds the scope boundary and sibling routing. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Between the description, the exhaustive 100%-covered schema (including a strong body-level summary and pagination guidance), and the presence of an output schema, an agent has everything it needs to call this correctly. Minor gaps such as driver-level constraints and page-walking behaviour live in the schema rather than the top-level description, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — every parameter and nested body field has a description, including genuinely helpful guidance like 'walk pages until a short one comes back' and 'a wide page is truncated by the character limit'. The description only adds coarse semantic grouping ('filters for expiry, renewability and DNSSEC'), which is useful framing but does not carry meaning the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 names a specific verb ('searches'), a specific resource ('domains held in this account'), and the return shape ('one summary per domain'). It explicitly contrasts itself with eurodns_domain_get ('returns one domain in full'), so an agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

It identifies this as 'the inventory query' and names eurodns_domain_get as the full-detail alternative, giving a clear selection condition: use this for summarised account inventory, use domain_get for one complete domain. It doesn't address other search-adjacent siblings such as eurodns_subscription_search or eurodns_domain_check_availability, though their distinct resource names lower the confusion risk.

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