domain-availability

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

Discloses key behaviors: uses RDAP (authoritative registry data), no API key required, returns per-TLD availability status, registrar, and expiry. Also explains behavior when full domain is passed (TLD stripped). No mention of error handling or rate limits, but details are sufficient for a simple tool.

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?

Two focused sentences with a third listing use cases. Front-loaded with purpose and default TLDs. No unnecessary words; 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (status, registrar, expiry per TLD). Covers main functionality, use cases, and technology. Lacks mention of error scenarios or read-only nature, but overall satisfactory for a straightforward 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters. Description adds value by explaining that 'name' can be a full domain and will be stripped, and clarifies default TLDs and max 10 for 'tlds'. Provides meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states the verb ("check"), resource ("domain name availability"), and scope (across multiple TLDs with defaults listed). Distinguishes from sibling tools like domain-whois by specifying availability checking across TLDs. Use cases (brand research, startup naming) add clarity.

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?

Provides clear context and use cases ("Ideal for brand research..."). Mentions "no API key" as an advantage. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to sibling tools like domain-whois.

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