check_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool's behavior by listing the specific checks performed (liveness, parked page, Common Crawl count, last seen date). This gives a concrete picture of the tool's operation, though it does not mention potential side effects or rate limits, which are likely minimal for a check operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope and key features. It contains no filler and every word adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functional aspects by listing the checks performed. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format, which would be helpful in the absence of an output schema. Still, the listed checks implicitly indicate the output, making it reasonably complete.

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 schema already documents the 'domain' parameter as 'Domain to check' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating it is a single domain, which is already implied by the singular noun in the schema. Thus, the description contributes no meaningful extra meaning.

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 a specific verb 'Deep check' with a clear resource 'a single domain' and enumerates concrete checks: liveness, parked page detection, Common Crawl page count, last seen date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_backlinks, find_expired, and competitor_gap, which focus on different analyses.

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 implies usage for analyzing a single domain's health and historical presence, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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