typo_tld_variation

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool resolves each TLD variation and reports registered ones with IPs, which adequately conveys the read-only nature and output focus. It could be more detailed about volume or rate implications but is transparent enough for the tool's simplicity.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the behavior and output. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 is complete: it explains what it tests, what it resolves, and what it reports. It lacks minor context (e.g., exact list of TLDs or runtime) but satisfies the core need for a simple lookup tool. A score of 4 reflects that it goes beyond minimal viability.

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% and the 'domain' parameter is described in the schema with a clear example. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely illustrating TLD patterns. Since the schema documentation is complete, a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('common TLD confusions for a domain'), and provides concrete examples like .com to .co. It distinguishes itself from sibling typo tools (homoglyph, bitsquat, etc.) by focusing exclusively on TLD variations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when assessing TLD confusion attacks on a domain). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'for other typosquatting types use typo_homoglyph'), so it misses the higher bar of explicit alternatives.

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