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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only 'Fetch' operation, but it does not describe the output shape, result limits, how 'recently' is defined, or any edge cases. The vagueness of 'recently' leaves the time-window behavior under-specified.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loaded scoping information. For a tool with one optional parameter, this is an appropriately concise definition.

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?

The low complexity and well-documented schema cover how to invoke the tool, but with no annotations and no output schema the description does not state what the response contains or how to handle empty results. It also relies on sibling tool names rather than explicit differentiation, making it minimally adequate rather than 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 100%: the single 'time' parameter has an enum, a default, and a description. The description adds only the loose mapping from 'recently' to the time window, so it does not materially improve on what the schema already provides.

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 ('Fetch') and a narrow resource ('recently deleted .cl domains'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_latest_domains or search_domains. The .cl TLD restriction and the 'deleted' state give an agent concrete selection criteria.

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 intended use case is implied clearly: use this tool when the agent needs recently deleted .cl domains. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that this is a read-only fetch operation and scopes it to .cl domains, but it does not describe pagination, limits, or output structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single compact sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the verb and resource and communicates the core behavior immediately.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema are sufficient to know what the tool does and how to call it. The return shape is left unspecified, but the tool's simplicity limits the impact of that gap.

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?

The schema fully documents the single 'time' parameter with an enum and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('recently registered .cl domains'), making its purpose immediately clear. It also naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_deleted_domains or search_domains.

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 phrase 'recently registered .cl domains' implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs new registrations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusion criteria, or when to prefer a sibling such as search_domains or get_deleted_domains.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for .cl domains using a pattern' and does not mention result limits, pagination, return format, or whether the pattern is interpreted literally or as a wildcard. The absence of any behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters. It loses one point because it omits any mention of the filtering behavior, making it less helpful than it could be at a similar length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns, but it doesn't. It also doesn't clarify the pattern syntax or how the filter applies. With no annotations and only a one-sentence description, the tool is under-specified for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the context of '.cl domains' and 'pattern', but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for q and filter. The schema's parameter descriptions are sufficient.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('.cl domains') with a pattern. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_latest_domains and get_deleted_domains because those imply retrieval of fixed sets, while this one is pattern-based. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios that favor search_domains over get_latest_domains, get_deleted_domains, or whois_domain. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'search', not stated.

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

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

The description indicates a read-only lookup operation but does not disclose potential behavior such as errors for unregistered domains, rate limits, or the detail level of the response. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and target resource, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it specifies the input and the type of output. However, since there is no output schema, the agent is left without details on what fields the WHOIS data will contain, so a minor gap remains.

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?

The input schema fully documents the 'domain' parameter with an example format, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed WHOIS information for a .cl domain'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_latest_domains, search_domains, and get_deleted_domains, which deal with domain lists and searches.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling names; there is no sentence explaining that this is the tool to call for single-domain registration details rather than bulk lists.

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