quote-domain-purchase

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, indicating it's a read-only operation with dynamic output. The description adds behavioral context: the 'purchase-token' is short-lived (~10 minutes). This is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Very concise: two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and key outputs, the second gives explicit usage instruction. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Tool has moderate complexity (one nested param object) with no output schema. The description covers purpose, key outputs, token validity, and usage order. However, it does not describe the return format or list all output fields (e.g., price structure). With annotations providing readOnly and openWorld hints, the description is nearly complete for agent invocation decision-making.

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%, so the description must add meaning. The description does not detail parameters 'fqdn' and 'term' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., schema describes fqdn as 'Target domain name'). However, the description's context (quote, price, purchase-token) implicitly explains the role of the 'fqdn' parameter. The 'term' parameter is not mentioned, which is a minor gap. Overall, the purpose-driven description compensates well.

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's purpose: 'Get a signed purchase quote for a domain before buying.' It identifies the specific verb ('get a signed purchase quote'), resource ('domain purchase'), and output (final price, availability, credit-card registration state, purchase-token). It is easily distinguished from the sibling 'purchase-domain' tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Always call this before purchase-domain and present the price to the user.' This provides clear guidance on the workflow order and direct instruction to present the price, distinguishing it from the purchase step.

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