domain_expiry_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates read-only behavior through 'assess', 'checks', and 'flags', and discloses exact thresholds and the transfer lock check. It omits error/edge-case behavior, but for a simple single-parameter read-only tool this is sufficient.

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, each with a distinct purpose: core action, checks performed, and threshold logic. It is front-loaded, non-redundant, and free of 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is assessed, via which method, and what risk categories are returned. It does not describe output structure, but the flag categories imply the return semantics adequately.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'domain' with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so the schema-coverage baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Assess'), names the resource ('domain expiry risk'), and specifies the method ('via RDAP'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like domain_whois by clearly focusing on risk classification with thresholds rather than raw data.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to evaluate domain expiry risk. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the operational thresholds ('critical <30 days', 'warning <90 days') make the intended use obvious.

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