find_expired

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the internal process (searches CC CDX, checks liveness) and the output (domain status), but it omits potential side behaviors like network latency, external dependency on Common Crawl, or how 'live' status is determined. This is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then adding process and output details. Every word contributes value, with no redundant information or 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does by specifying 'domain status (expired/parked/live)'. The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), and the description covers input, process, and output adequately for an agent to invoke it. Minor gaps like exact result structure or edge cases keep it from a 5.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references keywords in the context of niche matching but does not add deeper semantics about how limit is applied or how keywords are combined. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 finds expired or parked domains in a niche using Common Crawl, which is a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes from siblings like check_domain (which likely checks a single domain) and discover_backlinks by focusing on finding multiple status-classified 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?

The description implies usage for niche-based searches of expired/parked domains, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like check_domain. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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