domain_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a boolean and checks registration availability, which is core behavior. However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid domain format, network failures) or any rate limits. For a simple tool this is acceptable, but more detail on response failure modes would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The key information—purpose and return type—is front-loaded, and the usage hint is brief. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and a boolean output, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the output type, and a typical use case. It does not mention potential edge cases or failure modes, but these are not critical for a simple availability check. Overall, it provides everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call it.

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 already describes the 'domain' parameter with an example, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema states. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'domain name available for registration'. It also specifies that it returns a boolean, which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform whois, DNS, or SSL checks. No confusion about what this tool does.

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 gives a clear use case: 'finding an unregistered domain before attempting to register it.' While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like whois_lookup, the different purpose (availability vs. record lookup) is intuitive. Could have mentioned that other tools are for DNS/SSL checks, but the context is adequate.

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