Check Domain Availability

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds value by specifying the return shape ({ available: boolean, owner?, inscriptionId? }), which is not in the annotations or an output schema. It does not describe error conditions, but for a read-only check this is acceptable.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose; no filler or unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, high schema coverage, and complete annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its inputs, and output structure. With no output schema, the returns section is essential and provided clearly.

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 name and extension are fully described in the schema. The description's Args section essentially repeats the schema descriptions without adding new meaning (e.g., extension default is already in schema). Hence no added value beyond 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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a domain name is available for registration.' It distinguishes from siblings like ordnet_domain_info and ordnet_domain_search by focusing on availability for registration, not general info or search.

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 implies usage context—checking availability before registration—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. It gives clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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