net_icp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source ('official interface') and the kind of information returned, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or the response format. This leaves some behavioral 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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and usage. There is no filler, and every word contributes to the tool's understandability.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description still manages to convey the core input and output expectations. It does not cover error handling or exact output structure, but for a simple query tool it is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single 'domain' parameter, and the description only says 'input domain', which essentially restates the parameter name without adding constraints (e.g., format, IDN handling, subdomain usage). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: querying ICP filing information via the official MIIT interface, taking a domain as input and returning filing number, organizer, and other details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling network tools like net_whois and net_url_status.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need ICP filing details for a domain. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the niche purpose is well-defined and no competing sibling tool exists for this specific function.

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