timeweb_check_domain

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. The word 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't disclose what the response looks like (e.g., boolean, status), whether it queries external WHOIS/registry data, or any rate limits. The format parameter hints at return formats but is not mentioned here.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the check returns (e.g., available/unavailable). It doesn't. The description is too minimal to fully prepare an agent for calling the tool, especially given the lack of any behavioral or response details.

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?

Both parameters (fqdn, format) have detailed descriptions in the schema, covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 'Check if a domain is available for registration' uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('domain') with a clear scoping ('available for registration'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like timeweb_list_domains and timeweb_get_domain, which deal with existing domains in the account.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to determine if a domain can be registered. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would know to use this for pre-registration checks rather than for managing existing domains.

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