domain_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the content of the information (registration dates, nameservers, contacts, status, WHOIS settings), which gives some transparency into the response. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention any access requirements or limitations. This is decent but somewhat under-specified for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information about a domain') and immediately lists the included data types. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what the tool does and what information it returns. It covers the essential categories (registration dates, nameservers, contacts, status, WHOIS settings), which suffices for the agent to invoke it correctly. However, it does not clarify how this differs from potentially overlapping sibling tools like domain_registry_status, so it is not fully complete in context.

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 covers 100% of the parameter description ('The domain name to get information for (e.g. example.com)'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the domain's role; it simply repeats the same context as the schema without further elaboration.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'domain' and enumerates the types of information returned (registration dates, nameservers, contacts, status, WHOIS settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain_check (availability) and domain_registry_status (status only), fulfilling the 'specific verb+resource+scope' criterion.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context implicitly. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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