ClawDaddy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden and successfully communicates prerequisites (unlocked domain), policy constraints (ICANN 60-day rule), and authentication requirements (management token). It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent or destructive, though 'Get' implies read-oriented behavior.

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?

Four short sentences with zero redundancy. Opens with the core action, follows with prerequisites, policy constraint, and auth requirement. Every sentence conveys essential operational 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?

Covers critical domain-specific constraints (ICANN policy, unlocked status) and authentication needs that are essential for this operation. Without an output schema, the description adequately indicates the return value (the authorization code), though it could specify the code format or expiration.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions the management token requirement and domain context, but this information largely restates what the schema already provides ('domain', 'token').

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 ('Get the authorization code'), the resource (transfer code), and the context ('to transfer a domain to another registrar'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like get_domain_info or recover_token.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Domain must be unlocked first') and constraints ('Cannot transfer within 60 days of registration'), which guide when to use the tool. Lacks explicit naming of alternative tools for comparison, but the constraints serve as effective usage boundaries.

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