ai_domain_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic input-output relationship. It does not mention whether suggestions are checked for availability, whether results vary, how many suggestions are returned, or any rate-limiting or external service dependencies.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could convey more useful context without becoming bloated.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential input meaning and the general nature of the output. However, it lacks details such as output format, number of suggestions, and whether the results are actual registered domains or merely name ideas, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'prompt' parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by indicating that prompt should be a business description, but it omits format expectations, length limits, or examples.

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 that the tool generates domain name suggestions from a business description, which conveys the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_domain or list_tlds, but the generative 'suggestions from business description' framing makes the purpose reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_domain, whois_lookup, or list_tlds. The description implies a use case—domain ideation from a business description—but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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