Search Domains

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the return structure (domains with name, owner, inscriptionId, count) and the prefix-based search behavior. This is useful but not excessive.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It includes all necessary details without fluff, though the Args section somewhat duplicates the schema descriptions. Overall, it is appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return format. It also covers the parameters and the domain-prefix search behavior. Missing details like result ordering, empty results, or explicitness about 'prefix' semantics are minor and do not hinder use.

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%, and the description repeats the parameter descriptions without adding much new meaning. 'Query' and 'limit' are self-explanatory and already well-described in the schema. The description does not clarify format, validation, or behavior beyond schema defaults.

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 tool's purpose: to search for registered domains by name prefix. This is a specific verb (search) and resource (registered domains) and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like domain_check (availability) and domain_info (individual domain details).

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 ('registered domains', 'by name prefix') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There's no comparison to sibling domain tools, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role.

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