typo_combosquat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Checks DNS registration.' However, it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, potential rate limits, or any side effects. The described behavior is helpful but incomplete.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. The first sentence explains what it does, the second provides method details and the DNS-check behavior. There is no redundancy or unnecessary content.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough information to understand the main functionality: generating combosquat domains and checking DNS registration. It could be more complete by hinting at the return structure (e.g., whether results include only registered domains or all variants with status), but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description contributes illustrative examples (domain-login, domain-secure) that clarify the combination pattern and mentions default/custom keywords, which aligns with the schema. However, it doesn't add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as edge cases or keyword formatting.

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 a specific action ('Generate') with a specific resource ('brand+keyword combination domains') and provides concrete examples. It distinguishes this tool from sibling typo tools like typo_homoglyph or typo_bitsquat by focusing on combosquatting rather than character substitution or bit errors.

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 context (generating combosquat variants) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like typo_homoglyph or typo_full_scan, nor does it state exclusion criteria. The usage scenario is inferable but not clearly articulated.

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