scan_keyword_tlds

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool performs an audit and reports two kinds of results, but it does not disclose data sources, freshness, rate limits, network dependence, or whether results are live vs cached. These omissions keep it from being more transparent, though nothing contradicts the read-only implication of 'Audits.'

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 entire description is one sentence that front-loads the action, specifies the TLD scope in parentheses, and states the two report outputs. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a one-parameter tool, the description covers the input, the TLD scope, and the high-level outputs. However, there is no output schema, so it would benefit from clarifying what 'registration status' and 'commercial density' look like in the response, and from positioning the tool relative to find_available_combinations. It is functional but leaves gaps.

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% because keyword is fully described with an example ('permafrost, subsea'). The tool description adds only the idea of a 'core' keyword, which roughly restates the schema's 'root keyword.' The description does not go beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audits') and resource ('a core keyword across major TLDs'), enumerating a concrete TLD list and naming the two outputs ('registration status and commercial density'). It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool find_available_combinations, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation standard.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need registration/availability and commercial-density information for a keyword across the listed TLDs. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not mention the alternative find_available_combinations or the conditions that would select one tool over the other.

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