typo_keyboard_proximity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It goes beyond just 'generates variants' by disclosing a secondary action: 'Checks DNS registration.' This alerts the agent to expected network behavior and additional side effects. While it doesn't detail rate limits or output specifics, this is a good disclosure for a one-parameter tool.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clean colon list to enumerate mutation types. The final sentence about DNS registration is a useful supplement. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is quite complete: it specifies the exact operation, the variant types, and a secondary behavior. The only gaps are the lack of output format details (e.g., whether it returns only registered domains or a status list) and any cautions about volume/performance. These are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description and example for the 'domain' parameter. The tool description adds useful context about the types of variants generated but doesn't add any new syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('QWERTY keyboard proximity typosquat variants'), enumerates four distinct mutation types, and is easily differentiated from sibling typo tools like typo_homoglyph or typo_soundsquat. It clearly and concisely states the tool's primary function.

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 this tool is for generating keyboard-proximity typosquats, and the name further reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention that other typo_* tools cover different mutation categories. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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