check_brand_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks availability, implying a read operation, but does not mention any side effects, rate limits, or return format. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding important detail about TLDs in the second. No extraneous text; every sentence 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 tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description provides the default TLD list and mentions support for 30+ TLDs, which is sufficient context for the tool's use. A minor gap is the lack of indication of what the output looks like, but it is not essential for a check tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by enumerating the default TLDs (.com .io .dev .app .ai etc.) and noting that it supports 30+ TLDs including trending ones. This provides context for the 'tlds' parameter that the schema alone does not.

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 for a single brand name across many TLDs. It includes a specific verb (check) and resource (domain availability), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_domains' and 'suggest_and_check_domains' by focusing on a single brand name and listing default TLDs.

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 explains when to use the tool (for a single brand name) and how to customize TLDs, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It offers clear parameter usage instructions: 'Omit to use the default popular set.' This provides sufficient context for an agent to decide.

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