domains_get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states read-only, public-endpoint/no-auth, and no-purchase semantics, which are the traits an agent most needs before calling. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or quote validity/TTL, which would matter for a 'locked quote'.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the pricing breakdown, then appends the safety guarantees. Slightly dense with enumerated output field names, but every clause carries usable information rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the exact return fields (wholesaleCents, platformCutCents, platformCutBasisPoints, totalCents) and the 1% platform cut, and it covers the auth/side-effect profile. For a 2-parameter read-only pricing tool, nothing essential 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%, so the domain and period parameters are already documented in the schema (including the 'default 1' note). The description mentions no input parameters at all, adding nothing beyond schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus precise resource ('locked price quote for registering a domain') and the exact breakdown returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like domains_prepare_registration and domains_check_availability, which do not return pricing.

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?

Explicitly frames the safe, zero-friction use case ('Read-only, no API key needed... any agent can try it with zero signup') and rules out the feared side effect ('Nothing is purchased'). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. when to prefer domains_prepare_registration), so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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