consultar_dominio_br

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

Discloses that results are never cached (always current), returns specific fields, and notes what the API does not expose (titular/whois). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does well but could mention potential rate limits or authentication.

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 brief (3-4 sentences) with front-loaded purpose, no redundant words, and clear bullet points for output types. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return fields (status, fqdn, servers, expiry, suggestions) and covers when/not to use. It is complete for a single-parameter query 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description, but the description adds value by explaining normalization of input (URLs, www, path removal) and acceptable formats. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 the tool checks .br domain registration status from registro.br via BrasilAPI, specifying exact purpose and output fields. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like consultar_cep or consultar_cnpj by focusing solely on .br domains.

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 provides when-to-use examples ('o domínio X.com.br tá livre?') and clear exclusions: not for international domains, whois data, or hosting. This fully guides agent selection.

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