Suggest available domain names

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context the schema cannot: it uses the caller's model via MCP sampling when available, falling back to the server's Claude API key. That execution-model disclosure is valuable, though it doesn't mention cost/latency implications.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the execution-model caveat. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. The description gives enough of the sampling/API-key mechanism for correct invocation, though it stops short of what happens when neither path is available.

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 tlds, count, style and description are fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only alludes to TLD checking and ranking and adds no format or default detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific compound workflow — brainstorm names, check across TLDs, rank by real availability — which crisply separates it from the check-only siblings (check_domain, check_domains, check_name_across_tlds). The verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (you want new name ideas rather than verifying an existing name), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of check_domains when...' statement or exclusion. The distinction from siblings is inferable but not spelled out.

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