Claim free domain

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that the operation consumes a free domain, requires no payment, indicates success only when registration is complete, and produces errors like 2037 when no free domain is available. It also discloses default WHOIS fallback and TLD-specific additional_details validation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and spends most sentences on useful behavioral details. The final sentence repeats the opening idea, which slightly reduces conciseness, but overall there is minimal 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?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains success semantics, failure handling, error codes, preconditions, and TLD-specific requirements. It could be slightly more explicit about what the response body contains or how it relates to transfer tools, but it is not incomplete enough to mislead an agent.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters, and the description adds meaningful context: domain_contacts relates to WHOIS records, additional_details is TLD-dependent and validated, and omitted WHOIS info falls back to defaults. This supplements the schema rather than merely repeating 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a free domain available on your account and register it.' It also explicitly contrasts with purchasing a domain, which distinguishes it from siblings like domains_purchaseNewDomainV1.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when a free domain is available and no payment method is required. It also covers prerequisites like ensuring WHOIS information exists. However, it does not explicitly name the transfer sibling domains_claimFreeDomainTransferV1 as an alternative.

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