APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') and indicates the data is 'current', but lacks details on caching behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling when invalid TLDs are provided.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. The trailing '(NameSilo)' is slightly redundant given the tool name prefix, but overall it exhibits minimal waste.

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 lookup tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the conceptual return value (price data for registration/renewal/transfer). It could be improved by mentioning currency or data freshness, but it is sufficient for tool selection.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'tld' parameter ('Optional TLD to filter...'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema is self-sufficient, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific verbs ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource (registration, renewal, and transfer prices) and scope (popular TLDs with concrete examples). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check', 'register', and 'info' by focusing specifically on pricing data.

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?

While the description implies usage through the specific purpose (getting prices), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like domain.namesilo.check or domain.namesilo.register. It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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