domain_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns whether the domain is available, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or non-mutating, nor does it describe any response format beyond 'whether'. This is minimal but not misleading; no contradiction with annotations (since none exist).

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Check domain name availability') and a clear statement of the return value. There is no verbose or irrelevant 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the purpose and return value, but does not specify the exact return type (e.g., boolean vs string) or edge cases (e.g., invalid domains). The absence of an output schema makes the description's mention of 'returns whether' helpful, but it remains incomplete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond restating 'domain name'. Since baseline for high schema coverage is 3, this is appropriate.

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 ('check') and resource ('domain name availability'), and clearly states the return value ('whether available for registration'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_info (which would provide details) and domain_registry_status (which checks registry state).

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 (checking availability before registration) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, though the tool's purpose itself is fairly clear from the name and description.

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