domain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the check is the same underlying as check_domain and mentions the optional include_raw flag behavior. However, it doesn't describe the output format, error behavior for unregistered domains, rate limits, or what fields populate when include_raw is false. Adequate but sparse for an unannotated 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?

Two compact paragraphs plus a structured Args list. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then parameters. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema present and decent description coverage, this is reasonably complete. The description explains the tool's purpose, its relationship to check_domain, and parameter intent. Could add error handling or unregistered-domain behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and output schema availability, the coverage is sufficient.

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 0%, so neither schema nor description documents parameter semantics beyond names. The description mentions 'domain' and 'include_raw' in the Args section but only restates what the names imply—no format hints, no example values, no types beyond the schema defaults. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves registration details (registrar, expiry, nameservers) for a domain. It explicitly differentiates from check_domain by noting they share the same underlying check but this tool is preferred for WHOIS-like metadata on already-registered domains. Verb+resource+scope are all specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool ('prefer this when you need WHOIS-like metadata for a domain you already know is registered') and names the alternative (check_domain). Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the positive guidance and sibling differentiation are clear.

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