domain_history

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the source (RDAP) and return type (timeline of events), but lacks detail on authentication needs, caching behavior, rate limits, or failure modes. Adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

Low complexity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema) means modest requirements. The description explains the return value type (timeline) and enumerates event categories, which is sufficient. Minor gap: the exact structure of the 'timeline' is unspecified, but acceptable for a simple 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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single 'domain' parameter, including an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve domain event history from RDAP' clearly states the action and data source. It distinguishes from siblings like domain_whois and domain_age by focusing on a timeline of events (registration, expiration, last changed, transfer) rather than current state or single attributes.

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 context is implied by the name and description (use when you need event history), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over domain_whois or domain_age, nor any exclusions.

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