appraise_domain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It implicitly suggests a read-only evaluation (by using 'Evaluates') and lists what it assesses, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe any side effects, external calls, or limitations. For a simple analysis tool this is adequate, though not rich.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core verb and immediately lists the specific evaluation dimensions. Every word carries meaning, and there is no redundant or irrelevant text.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what the tool evaluates and implies what output to expect. It does not describe the return format or how scores are scaled, but given the low complexity and that the four evaluated aspects are listed, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already covers 100% of the single parameter, including its type and an example, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'domain name,' which does not improve on the schema's clarity.

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 ('Evaluates') and names the domain name as the resource, then enumerates four distinct outputs (market value, commercial viability, quality tier, liquidity score). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like check_whois (whois lookup) and evaluate_outbound_potential (outbound sales potential), so an agent can select it without confusion.

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 implies usage when an appraisal of a domain's value and quality is needed, and the sibling names suggest alternative purposes. However, it gives no explicit 'use this when' or 'not when' guidance, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for choosing this tool over the siblings.

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