Check domain evidence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels by explaining that evidence is reported independently rather than collapsed into a verdict, that lack of DNS does not mean unregistered, that results are a snapshot with no reservation, and that a domain can be taken between call and checkout. It also discloses the required naming:read scope, which is valuable beyond schema info.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and scope ('up to 20 bare domains') and then packs essential caveats, alternatives, and auth requirements into every sentence without fluff or repetition.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does an excellent job of setting expectations: it lists the four evidence sources, explains the separate reporting model, warns about snapshot semantics, names the auth scope, and points to the alternative tool. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful schema description. The tool description adds some context—e.g., 'optional search results showing who else already occupies the name' and 'requires the naming:read scope'—but it mostly reinforces what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check up to 20 bare domains and return four independent kinds of evidence.' It enumerates the exact evidence sources (RDAP, DNS, Cloudflare Registrar, optional search results) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_name_evidence, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage guidance: it is for checking specific domains, not for broader name research, and it explicitly directs users to search_name_evidence for non-domain-specific research. It also clarifies when to enable optional search results via includeSerp ('finalist collision research') and when registrar checks might be disabled.

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