search_domains

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.