domain-checker_check_domain_tool

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

Mentions the method of checking (DNS and RDAP), which provides some behavioral context. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose potential costs, rate limits, or whether the operation is truly read-only beyond what is implied. Bare minimum transparency for a simple check tool.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, no wasted words. Efficient and direct, but could be slightly improved by front-loading the core purpose more prominently (though it already does).

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but fails to describe the return format or error conditions. The agent does not know if the response is boolean, string, or structured, which is a gap given the complexity level.

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 a clear description of the single parameter 'domain'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'checks' and resource 'domain availability', distinguishing from sibling tool 'check_tlds_tool' by specifying it checks domains for registration availability. The description is specific and actionable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'check_tlds_tool'. Lacks any contextual instructions about prerequisites, domain format restrictions, or when to prefer alternative tools.

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