check_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses accepted TLDs (.xrp, .xrpl, .xrpfi, .rlusd), the default TLD, the 1–25 domain limit, and the return fields: availability, price in XRP and RLUSD, owner address, profile metadata, a web URL, and invalid_domains. This provides good behavioral insight, though it stops short of describing the exact response structure.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage examples and return-value details. It is five sentences long but each sentence adds distinct useful information; it could be tightened slightly but is well-structured and free of 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 and no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for conveying the tool's behavior. It covers input constraints, TLD handling, return fields, registration URL, and validation errors, making it comprehensive for a domain-checking tool.

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 fully describes the single 'domains' parameter (array of 1–25 strings, each may include or omit TLD, defaults to .xrp). The tool description repeats this information but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Check' with the resource '1 to 25 XRPL domains' and explains the purpose (registration status and cost). The example questions like 'is <name>.xrp taken?' and 'how much does <name>.xrp cost?' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools such as check_tx_status, get_domain_profile, and register_domain.

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 explicitly says 'Use for questions like...' and provides concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to use the tool. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the examples imply boundaries (e.g., registration is a separate action).

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