Quote domain renew

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive and non-open-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: that this produces a quote (no charge), that pricing is inherited from the existing domain record, and that a specific paid scope is required. The remaining gap is what the quote yields or how long it remains valid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then pricing behavior, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information, though 'for an owned domain' and 'follows the existing domain record' slightly overlap.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a quote returns and how it is consumed (e.g. feeding confirm_domain_renew). It covers the essentials — action, pricing source, auth — but leaves the post-quote workflow unaddressed for a 4-parameter billing 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 description coverage is 100%, so years, domain, domain_id and idempotencyKey are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the 'owned domain' constraint, which is helpful but marginal; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a VPSNet-priced renewal quote') and scopes it to an 'owned domain', which distinguishes it from quote_domain_register and quote_domain_transfer. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is concrete enough for an agent to pick correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by the renewal context and the stated auth prerequisite ('Requires paid domains:renew scope/caps for API keys'), which is genuine guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over confirm_domain_renew or quote_domain_restore, nor that a quote precedes confirmation.

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