search_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool returns (availability, pricing, WHOIS privacy, insights) and provides examples of usage, adding valuable context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear bulleted list of returns and practical examples. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete—it explains the purpose, returns, and usage. However, it could improve by detailing output structure or error cases, slightly limiting completeness for agent invocation.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by illustrating parameter usage in examples (e.g., 'vibecoding' for domain_name, ['com', 'io'] for tlds), but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema specifies.

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 specific action ('Search for domain availability and pricing') and resource ('across multiple TLDs'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_socials' or 'suggest_domains'. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 through examples (e.g., checking domain availability) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_search' or 'compare_registrars'. No context about exclusions or prerequisites is provided, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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