search_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: prefix matching, a 2-character minimum, accepted stance values, limit range 1-100, default 20, and offset pagination. It does not mention case sensitivity or result ordering, but the provided details are sufficient for safe use.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return summary, and a terse Args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

With four parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary invocation knowledge: purpose, return content, parameter meanings, constraints, and defaults. The output schema handles return structure, so no further explanation of return values is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section adds thorough semantics for every parameter: query is a prefix with example and min length, stance has explicit allowed values, limit has a range and default, and offset has a default. This exceeds what the bare input schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for domains in the Maango AI policy registry by prefix.' It also states what is returned ('matching domains with their stance and Tranco rank'), which clearly distinguishes prefix search from exact-match sibling tools like lookup_domain.

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 use case is implied by 'by prefix' and the parameter details, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any named alternative such as lookup_domain for exact matches. The agent must infer that prefix search is intended for partial/unknown domain names.

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