InstaDomain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that availability checking occurs (key behavioral trait), but omits safety classification (read-only vs. destructive), rate limits, or approximate result volume. It does not clarify if availability checks consume API quotas or have costs.

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 efficiently structured with a clear functional statement followed by parameter documentation. The 'Args:' format is slightly formal for MCP but appropriate given the lack of schema descriptions. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the input parameter and core functionality without needing to detail return values (handled by output schema). Minor gap: lacks safety/rate limit context due to missing annotations.

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 0%, leaving the description to compensate. It successfully documents the 'keyword' parameter with clear semantics ('A keyword or short business name') and a concrete example ('taskflow'), effectively bridging the schema documentation gap.

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 dual function: 'Generate domain name ideas' (generation) and 'check their availability' (validation). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like check_domain (specific domain lookup) and buy_domain (purchase) by emphasizing the ideation aspect from a keyword.

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?

While the description implies the use case (starting with a keyword/idea), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus check_domain for specific domains or buy_domain for immediate purchase. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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