check_ens_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'Check if' implies a read-only operation, which is disclosed. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'available' (e.g., not registered, not reserved) or the response format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple one-parameter tool, but with no output schema, it does not explicitly state what the caller receives (e.g., boolean). It also lacks any context on edge cases like normalization or case sensitivity. Overall, it leaves minor gaps but is not severely incomplete.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter, including the important detail 'without .eth'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'ENS name availability', distinguishing this from sibling ENS tools like resolve_ens_name or get_ens_name_details by specifying the purpose is registration availability.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (before registering an ENS name) and what it checks (availability). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks the full explicit guidance of a 5.

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