domain_age

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (RDAP creation date) and the classification logic, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., RDAP unavailability), output format, or network dependencies, so transparency is partial.

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 and highly information-dense. It front-loads the core action and includes classification thresholds without any fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and classification details. It lacks explicit return value information and edge-case handling, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description nearly complete. No output schema exists, so a bit more detail on outputs would improve completeness.

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 single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about RDAP methodology but does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 determines domain age via RDAP creation date and provides specific classification thresholds (<30 days suspicious, <90 days young, >365 days established). This is a specific verb+resource with distinct classification logic, distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain_whois or domain_newly_registered.

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 classification into suspicious/young/established implies usage for domain risk assessment, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., domain_newly_registered, domain_whois). There are no exclusions or alternative references, so the 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.