search_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral details: output_format variants, the default, and save_to_file writing full results to a temp file for jq processing. It does not explicitly state read-only status, auth needs, or temp-file cleanup, but the search semantics and return/side-effect details are reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured: one front-loaded purpose sentence followed by compact parameter docs and a return line. There is no filler, and the parameter descriptions are necessary because the schema provides no descriptions.

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 search tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return type. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not explain the differences between 'full', 'compact', and 'summary' output, nor does it provide auth or safety context—though the latter is not strictly required for a read-oriented search operation.

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 0%, so all parameter meaning must come from the description. It explains query semantics, optional organization filtering, the limit maximum of 100, output_format options, and save_to_file's purpose—adding substantial value beyond the bare type/default information in the input schema.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Search for domains by name.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_domains and get_domain, which likely cover listing and individual retrieval rather than name-based search.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to find domains by name—but it never explicitly mentions sibling alternatives or says when not to use them. An agent must infer the choice between search_domains, list_domains, get_organization_domains, and list_expiring_domains.

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