InstaDomain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the specific type of code returned (EPP/transfer authorization code), which is valuable domain context. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only vs. mutation), error behaviors (what happens if order is incomplete), or whether the code is generated fresh or retrieved from existing state.

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 appropriately compact with two distinct sections: the purpose statement followed by the Args documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff, and the most critical information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context. It appropriately delegates return value documentation to the output schema while focusing on the operational constraint (completed purchase). Minor gaps remain regarding error states and sibling tool relationships.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting the order_id parameter as 'The order ID of a completed domain purchase.' This adds the crucial semantic constraint that the purchase must be completed, which is not inferable from the schema's bare 'string' type. Could be improved with format examples.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves (Get) the EPP/transfer authorization code for a specific resource (completed domain purchase). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like check_domain (pre-purchase) by specifying 'completed domain purchase,' though it could explicitly contrast with unlock_domain or get_domain_status.

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 description implies prerequisites by stating the order_id must be from a 'completed domain purchase,' which provides implicit guidance on when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or comparison to related operations like unlock_domain that might be prerequisites for transfer.

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