suggest_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a performance trait (larger category sets take proportionally longer), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or side effects. Return contents are covered by the output schema, so that omission is acceptable.

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 front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both input parameters are fully documented. The only gap is the missing explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling check_domain, which keeps this from being 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'name' is specified as the second-level label without a dot with a concrete example, and 'category' enumerates all four accepted values with TLD counts and the default. This effectively supplies the enum the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (one name across many TLDs) plus the result (which are free). The phrasing 'one name across many top-level domains' implicitly contrasts with the sibling check_domain, which appears to handle a single domain check, so the agent can route without opening either schema.

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 multi-TLD scope implies when this tool applies versus check_domain, and the note that larger sets take longer gives a practical selection cue. However, it never names check_domain or states explicitly when to use one over the other, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than declared.

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