find_available_domains

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those: live verification against RDAP, availability can change before purchase, daily rate limit, and no registration/transfer side effects. This significantly helps an agent set expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core behavior first, then usage routing, safety, and operational caveats. Every sentence adds value, and no content is duplicated from the schema or annotations.

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 that the schema already covers all parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides the remaining operational context an agent needs: live registry verification, availability caveat, rate limiting, and sibling-tool routing. No critical calling information is missing.

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 each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description reinforces the business-idea context but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema provides. Thus the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generate brandable .com name ideas and return only currently available names verified against the Verisign RDAP registry. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by noting it is not for single-domain checks or exhaustive pattern scans.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants name ideas they can actually buy') and when not to, naming both alternatives: check_domain for a single known domain and find_available_domains_by_pattern for exhaustive starts/ends/contains scans. This leaves little room for an agent to route incorrectly.

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