Check domain availability + price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool has no side effects, is free, and that the price must match later or registration will fail. It could mention edge cases like invalid domains or response error patterns, but the key behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It packs the essential usage flow, cost behavior, and side-effect information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what is returned (availability, price_cents, suggestions) and how it fits into the broader registration flow. Combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage, the tool is fully contextualized for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the domain should include a TLD and that city/industry bias suggestions, but it does not significantly extend beyond the schema. The key price_cents detail is an output, not a parameter, so it does not elevate parameter semantics further.

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 checks domain availability and price through Warpweb, and it distinguishes itself from register_domain by explicitly positioning this as step 1 of a two-call flow. It names the specific output (availability + price_cents) and related suggestions, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is step 1 of a two-call flow, and the returned price_cents must be passed exactly to register_domain. It also clarifies that it is free, consumes no credits, and has no side effects, helping the agent decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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