Search Domains

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's statement that it is read-only and does not purchase adds limited value beyond confirming safety. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, or how to handle errors. The added context of 'available domains' is helpful but minimal.

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 consists of two short, clear sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose and safety note) without unnecessary words.

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?

Given a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and safety. It could benefit from a brief note about the return format or scope of search (e.g., only available domains not already owned), but overall it is sufficient for a simple search tool with rich annotations.

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 the schema already documents the keyword parameter with minLength, maxLength, and a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action (search) and resource (available domains). It explicitly notes that it is read-only and does not purchase, which helps differentiate it from domain purchase tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like shipmail_list_domains, which list owned domains, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to search available domains without purchasing), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like shipmail_list_domains or shipmail_create_domain. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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