domain_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only check ('Check if a domain is available') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'available' means (e.g., registered status, cost). It adds some context with usage scenarios but lacks detailed operational 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?

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by bullet-pointed usage guidelines and related tools. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and next steps effectively. However, it lacks details on return values or error cases, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'domain' fully documented. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional value is added, but no compensation is needed.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain availability'), distinguishing it from siblings like domain_create, domain_list, and domain_update. It explicitly states 'Check if a domain is available for use,' which is precise and actionable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with a 'Best for' section listing specific scenarios (validating availability, pre-deployment checks, domain planning) and mentions 'Next steps: domain_create' and 'Related: domain_list,' clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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