domain_registry_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows'), which is safe. However, it does not disclose behaviors like whether the domain must exist, real-time data, or error handling, so transparency is limited.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes examples. Every word adds value; no fluff.

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 single-parameter read-only status tool, the description is adequate: it states the purpose and gives sample output values. However, it could mention output format or conditions (e.g., valid registered domain), so it's slightly 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 schema has one parameter 'domain' with a clear description, covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the parameter name, so the baseline of 3 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 ('Get') and resource ('registry status (EPP status codes) of a domain'), with examples (clientTransferProhibited, serverHold) that clarify the output. It is distinct from sibling tools like domain_info or registrar_lock_status by focusing on EPP status codes specifically, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, without indicating when to use it over sibling tools like domain_info or registrar_lock_status. This makes it a clear gap for tool selection.

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