InstaDomain

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

No annotations provided, but description fully compensates by disclosing critical implementation details: polling interval (3 seconds), timeout (120 seconds), and terminal states (complete/failed). This warns agents about blocking/polling behavior and timeout limits that would affect execution planning.

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?

Well-structured with clear separation between purpose statement, behavioral details, and parameter documentation. Uses standard docstring Args format effectively. Slightly verbose for a single-parameter tool but justified by 0% schema coverage requiring inline documentation.

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?

Given existence of output schema (mentioned in context signals) and single simple parameter, description is complete. Covers purpose, polling mechanism, timeout behavior, and parameter semantics without needing to document return values (handled by output schema).

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates perfectly by providing semantic context ('returned from buy_domain') and concrete example format ('ord_abc123'), clarifying the parameter's source and expected syntax beyond the bare 'string' type in schema.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a domain purchase order'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like buy_domain (which creates orders) and check_domain (which likely checks availability). The 'purchase order' terminology specifically scopes this to post-purchase status tracking.

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?

Implies workflow by referencing 'order_id returned from buy_domain', establishing this tool follows purchase actions. Clear behavioral description ('Polls...until terminal state') indicates when to use it (when waiting for order completion). Missing explicit contrast with check_domain for availability checks, though terminology difference is clear.

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