Domain Availability with Suggestions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. Description adds behavioral details: returns a 'domain_available_response' array, provides up to 100 suggestions, and mentions availability status. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences, no wasted words, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return values (array with availability status and suggestions up to 100). Tool complexity is low; description covers key aspects. Siblings are many but domain-related context is sufficient.

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 describes all three parameters (100% coverage). Description adds the return type but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the schema. For source, it mentions 'faster' vs 'more accurate' in the schema, not in description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks domain availability and provides alternative suggestions across TLDs/SLDs, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain name availability'). It distinguishes from sibling 'domain_check_availability' by emphasizing suggestions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'domain_check_availability' or 'domain_bulk_check_availability'. The description implies usage when suggestions are needed, but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria.

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