Tìm kiếm + báo giá tên miền

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: no MONA Pass login is required and it works for users without an account, plus the price is quoted in VND inclusive of VAT. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose (availability + price) before the auth note and the when-to-use hint. Dense but every clause earns its place; minor use of em-dash clauses slightly reduces readability.

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 read-only search tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations and with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states what it checks, what it returns (availability/price, in VND with VAT), and that no auth is needed. It could optionally note pagination/limits, but nothing essential 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 the schema already documents q, tlds, and years (defaults, separators, ranges). The description adds no parameter-level syntax beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair in two parts: check domain availability ('Kiểm tra tên miền còn trống') and view purchase price. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cloud_domain_buy, cloud_domain_reserve, and cloud_domain_suggest because it produces availability/price rather than performing a transaction.

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 routes the agent: 'dùng trước khi mua/giữ chỗ để biết available/price' — use before buying/reserving. This gives clear workflow context and implies the alternatives (buy/reserve), though it doesn't name those sibling tools explicitly, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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