validate_domain_availability

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description restates the availability check and adds the HTTP endpoint, but does not clarify why a 'check' is marked readOnly=false, whether the call has side effects, or what auth/rate-limit behavior applies. It does not explicitly contradict the annotations, but it leaves notable ambiguity.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence repeats the title and the bracketed endpoint adds noise without explaining behavior. The typo 'availablility' also slightly reduces polish.

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?

For a simple domain-check tool, the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety hints. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the exact return format or explain how this check relates to ordering or suggesting domains, leaving some completeness gaps.

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 both the domain and x-trace-id parameters are documented in the schema. The description embeds the domain in the URL path but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a specific domain is available. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_domains, suggest_domains, retrieve_domain, and order_domain. The endpoint is also included, though the typo 'availablility' is minor.

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 does not explain when to use this tool instead of suggest_domains, list_domains, retrieve_domain, or order_domain. It also does not state any prerequisite such as checking availability before ordering a domain. Usage is only implied by the verb 'check'.

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