查询域名详情

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists returned data, omitting side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if domain not found). Does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or has impact.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and details. Every word adds value.

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 detail query with no output schema, description enumerates key data categories (registrant, expiration, verification, DNS, management status) that an agent would need. Lacks mention of possible response format or pagination, but given single parameter, it's nearly 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%, with parameter description '要查询的域名，例如: example.com'. Description adds example but no additional semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the verb (query) and resource (domain detail), listing specific data fields (registrant info, expiration, verification, DNS, management status). It distinguishes from siblings: check_domain and list_domains differ in scope, create_order is unrelated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies usage for getting details of a specific domain, but does not provide alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not explicit.

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