extract_domain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool extracts detailed domain information but doesn't specify what 'detailed' includes (e.g., domain name, TLD, subdomain, registration details), whether it handles invalid URLs gracefully, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Extraer información detallada') and resource ('del dominio de una URL'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed domain information' entails, how errors are handled, or what the return values look like. For a tool that likely returns structured data about domains, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively, especially without structured output documentation.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately describes the single required parameter.

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 verb 'extraer' (extract) and the resource 'información detallada del dominio' (detailed domain information) from a URL. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'parse_url' and 'validate_url' by focusing specifically on domain extraction rather than general URL parsing or validation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'extract_urls' which might extract URLs from text rather than domain details from a single URL.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'parse_url' or 'validate_url'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where domain extraction is preferred over other URL-related operations. The agent must infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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