check_domain

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains what the tool returns (SEO metrics, per-platform prices, _url links) and the plan restriction. It does not mention side effects, but the tool is a read-only check, so the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 highly concise: three sentences, each adding essential information (what it does, what it returns, plan requirement). No wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input parameter, return values, and usage constraints. It is complete without needing additional detail.

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 has one parameter 'domain' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds clear semantics: 'Domain or URL to check, e.g. "example.com"', fully compensating for the lack of schema description.

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 the verb (Check), resource (a single domain), and scope (across all netlinking platforms). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_check by emphasizing 'single domain' and returns specific outputs (SEO metrics, prices, links).

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 explicitly states the tool is 'API plan only' and exclusive to a 250€/month plan, guiding the agent on when it is applicable. It implies single-domain checking but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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