Get Closeout

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: totalPrice is the authoritative cost to pass as cost_cents, the price differs depending on whether the name is renewed (already at Porkbun) or transferred in, and available:false signals the name is taken. It also warns against quoting the search 'price'.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then layers the ordering requirement, the reason totalPrice cannot be derived elsewhere, the availability semantics, and the quoting warning. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction; nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description documents the two return-relevant facts an agent needs (totalPrice and available) plus how to use totalPrice downstream in buy_closeout. Nothing required to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single domain parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the domain input to the renewal-vs-transfer pricing logic, which is domain-attribute-dependent behavior not expressible in the schema, though it does not restate the domain format.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get one closeout') plus the key returned field ('totalPrice — the binding amount'), which distinguishes it immediately from search_closeouts (listing) and buy_closeout (purchase). An agent knows exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Always call this before buy_closeout') and names the alternative it must not be replaced by ('it cannot be derived from search results'). It also explains the condition under which the result is unusable ('available: false means somebody already claimed it').

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