domain_price

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose side effects; 'Read-only' does exactly that and adds account-currency context. It does not describe response shape or error/empty-list behavior, but for a simple read query the key behavioral trait is covered.

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?

Two short sentences; the first front-loads the functional scope and the second adds the read-only safety signal. No filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema) and the description states the domain, price categories, currency, and read-only nature. It could be more explicit about the returned shape, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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%: the only parameter, tlds, is fully documented with format and empty-all semantics. Therefore the description need not add parameter detail; baseline 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?

Describes a price list for TLDs, specifying covered price types (registration, renewal, transfer) and currency, so an agent can tell it apart from domain_info or domain_check. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a fully distinguishing definition.

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 a pricing use case but never states when to prefer this tool over domain_check or domain_info, nor does it give exclusions. This is adequate context but relies on the tool name and noun phrase for routing.

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