Проверка доступности домена для регистрации

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

Annotations already provide openWorldHint (results depend on external state). The description adds the return type (boolean) and clarifies that it checks registration availability, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects or address the readOnlyHint: false inconsistency, as the operation appears read-only. The added context is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the return type. No redundant information; it's appropriately concise.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return value. The phrase 'свободен ли домен' makes it clear that true corresponds to availability. Annotations cover external-world dependence, and the schema covers the parameter definition.

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 fully describes the fqdn parameter ('ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - полное имя домена для проверки доступности'), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 whether a domain is free and can be registered ('Проверяет, свободен ли домен и можно ли его зарегистрировать') with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from domain management/creation tools like add_domain, create_domain_request, and get_domain.

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 purpose implies use for pre-registration availability checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_domain or create_domain_request. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned; the usage context is only inferred.

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