check_domains_quick

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the check is DNS-only, skips RDAP/WHOIS, and may report false positives for 'available', providing meaningful behavioral insight beyond the schema. It does not cover rate limits or return format, but for a simple check tool, the key limitation is well communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence of 17 words. It conveys the core purpose, the technical distinction, and the main limitation without any filler, earning its place entirely.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential trade-off and behavior. It could mention what the return looks like or explicitly reference the more accurate sibling, but for a quick check utility, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the reliability of the 'available' filter in the context of the enum, warning about false positives, which gives deeper semantic meaning to that parameter choice.

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 is a 'Quick DNS-only check' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling 'check_domains' by noting the lack of RDAP/WHOIS verification. It also identifies the key trade-off of false positives for 'available', making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 use when speed is prioritized over accuracy, noting it is 'fast but may have false positives for available'. This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over the more thorough alternative, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it.

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