Создание заявки на домен (регистрация/продление/трансфер)

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

The description discloses that it creates a 'request' (заявку), indicating indirect operation rather than immediate action, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on side effects, asynchronous behavior, or return formats, but the annotations already signal it is a non-read-only mutation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by key conditional requirements. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 9 parameters and 3 action types, the description gives a sufficient overview and highlights the most important conditional fields. It does not explain the response structure (no output schema), but the schema covers parameter details, making the description adequately complete for most use cases.

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 a concise mapping of when person_id and auth_code are required, reinforcing but not significantly exceeding schema semantics. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 creates a request for domain operations (register, prolong, transfer), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like add_domain or create_dns_record by focusing on domain operation requests and enumerating the action types.

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?

It provides clear context for usage by specifying that registration requires person_id and transfer requires auth_code, which guides parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the action-specific requirements effectively imply usage boundaries.

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