search_domains

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The word 'search' implies a read operation, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise, with a single line stating the purpose followed by a clean Args block. Every word is necessary, and the primary action is front-loaded. No wasted 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 with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could be improved by briefly noting the return type or what 'availability' means (e.g., boolean or details). Given the tool's simplicity, the current description is sufficient but not outstanding.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'domain' parameter's purpose and providing an example ('example.com'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable and clear.

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 clearly states it searches for domain availability, which identifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'domain availability'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domain' (retrieve details) and 'list_domains' (list owned domains), though it could be more explicit about the availability check.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist (e.g., get_domain, list_domains) but no differentiation is offered.

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