typo_soundsquat

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Checks DNS registration', indicating the tool performs live DNS lookups. It also gives concrete substitution examples, which adds practical context. However, it does not mention return format, potential rate limits, or side effects, and there is no annotation to cover these. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The first sentence states the tool's core function and gives illustrative substitutions; the second adds the DNS registration check. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: generating phonetic variants and checking DNS registration. It does not explicitly state the return value structure, but the DNS check implies a list of variants with registration status. This is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, already including an example ('facebook.com'). The description's examples of sound substitutions pertain to the algorithm, not to the parameter itself, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for full schema coverage.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource: 'phonetically similar domain variants'. The phrase 'using sound substitutions (e.g. ph/f, ck/k, ee/ea, oo/u)' precisely distinguishes it from sibling typo tools like typo_homoglyph or typo_bitsquat, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 intended usage is implied: you would use this when you need domain variants that sound alike. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives such as typo_homoglyph or typo_combosquat, which are adjacent in the sibling list. This leaves a moderate gap for deciding between typo-focused tools.

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