suggest_domains

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: it generates variations (with specific types listed), checks availability, and returns only available ones ranked by quality. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'quality' ranking entails (e.g., based on length, memorability).

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 appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, lists variation types with clear examples, states the return behavior, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and provides an example, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned suggestions), error handling, or deeper behavioral context like how 'quality' is determined.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it implies 'base_name' is used for variation generation and provides example variations, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors (e.g., what 'all' variants includes).

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate and check availability of domain name variations' and 'Returns only available suggestions, ranked by quality.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_domain' (single check) and 'suggest_domains_smart' (likely more advanced) by specifying the variation generation approach with concrete examples.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get available domain variations from a base name) and includes an example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'suggest_domains_smart' or 'search_domain', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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