adm_domain_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It correctly indicates a non-destructive read-only check, but it does not disclose the expected response format, whether the result is a boolean, or any domain normalization/availability nuance. 'Check if available' is transparent enough for a simple query, but it could more explicitly state that it does not register the domain.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The core action and target outcome are front-loaded, and the description is appropriately minimal for this simple tool.

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 is simple and the input is fully specified, so invocation is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., boolean, message, availability status). For a one-parameter check tool this is not a major omission, but it is a completeness gap.

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% and the domain parameter already includes an explanatory description and example ('e.g.com.ua'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain name ... available for registration'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools such as adm_domain_add and adm_domains, since it explicitly covers availability checking rather than listing or registering.

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 phrase 'available for registration' supplies clear context: use this tool to determine whether a domain can be registered, which also implies it is an alternative to adm_domain_add for the pre-check step. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative scenarios, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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