check_domain_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and includes useful behavioral information: the rate limit (60 calls per minute), the optimization trade-off between time (FAST) and accuracy (FULL), and that it returns a formatted string. The only missing piece is an explicit statement that the tool is non-destructive (read-only).

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 well-organized with a clear intro line, rate limit mention, structured Args block, and Returns line. Every sentence provides value, and there is no 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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately explains both usage patterns (specific domains or base+TLDs) and the return format. However, it does not clarify whether the two methods (domains vs base_name/tld_suffixes) are mutually exclusive or what happens if both are provided, which could confuse an agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining the purpose of each parameter in the Args block: domains as a list of full names, checkType for optimization, and the base_name + tld_suffixes combination for generating names. However, it could be more specific (e.g., what FAST vs FULL entail in practice).

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 it checks domain availability and pricing for multiple domains with different TLD suffixes. This is a specific verb+resource combination. With no sibling tools, there is no need for differentiation, so a high score is appropriate.

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 its use for checking domain availability, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentioned, which is acceptable given no siblings but still limits direction.

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