domains_checkDomainAvailabilityV1

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit, the ability to check multiple TLDs at once, and the format requirement for TLDs (no leading dot). It also explains the alternative domain feature. More details on the response format would be helpful, but the description is adequate.

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 only five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence provides unique information: purpose, multi-TLD capability, alternatives usage, TLD format, rate limit, and use case. No wasted words.

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?

Given the low complexity and complete parameter schema, the description covers usage, rate limits, and parameter nuances. It does not describe the response format, but no output schema exists, so this is not critical. A mention of what the response contains (e.g., availability status) would make it more complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the usage of `with_alternatives` (single TLD) and reinforcing the TLD format. It does not add new meaning for the `domain` parameter, but the schema already covers it.

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 checks availability of domain names across multiple TLDs. It uses specific verbs ('check availability') and resources ('domain names'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like domain forwarding, WHOIS, and lock operations.

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 description explicitly says to use this endpoint to verify domain availability before purchase. It also provides instructions for when to set `with_alternatives` to true (single TLD) and notes the rate limit of 10 requests per minute. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear.

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