Run model-authored name searches

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and exceeds it: it discloses the return format ('dated raw results and nothing else'), non-behaviors ('does not score, rank, decide whether a collision is real, or constitute trademark clearance'), the required scope ('naming:read'), and the 20-search limit. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then expands with purpose and limitations. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, authorship, output scope, follow-up action, alternative tool, and auth requirement. No filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what to expect (dated raw results only) and how to proceed (attach to board via move_name_candidates). It also covers the scope requirement and the domain alternative, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the agent authors the queries and is limited to 20 tasks, and emphasizes query purpose ('Write it for the specific risk you are testing'), which supports correct use of the query field beyond the schema's literal description.

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 uses a specific verb ('run web searches'), names the resource ('a candidate name'), and enumerates concrete risk types (collision, market context, meaning, unfortunate readings, negative associations, official registers). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming check_domains as the alternative for domain/DNS evidence.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('you know what would disqualify this particular name'), what it covers, and an explicit exclusion: 'For domain registration and DNS evidence use check_domains instead.' It also clarifies that it is not trademark clearance, hedging against misuse.

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