search_domains

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, and the description adds that the tool performs an actual web search and returns domains with URLs and titles. This is useful context beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 filler. It front-loads the core action and then provides use-case context and return value information.

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?

The tool has a simple schema, all parameters are documented, annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, and the description states the return format. It is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly, though it could briefly mention that queries can be arrays.

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 schema already documents query, region, and max_urls thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 finds domains via web search and is for discovering websites when specific domains are unknown. This distinguishes it from sibling URL-targeted tools like scrape_url and crawl_website.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you don't know specific domains. It implies a contrast with URL-specific tools but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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